'LIFE & TRIAL
JENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
OLD BAILEY, LONDON,
THE 22, 23, 24 & 25 SEPTEMBER, 1868,
Mil, COMMISSIONER KEEli, IN THE NEW COURT,
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION:
MK. SERJKANT BALLANT1XE, MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS,
aud Mr. STRAIGHT.
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE:
W. DKJBY SEYMOUR, Q.(\, MK. SKKJEAXT PARRY, MK. Si-lIl.JEAX'l1
SLI'ilGII, and MR. 11IGBY.
The Report copied verbatim Jrom THE vTiME,s.
DIl'UOSK AM, HATE.MAX, PBISTKIMJ 1:5 \ 17,
PRICE— ONE SK1L L i
LIFE & TRIAL
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
OLD BAILEY, LONDON,
ON THE 22, 23, 24 & 25, SEPTEMBER, 1868,
MR, COMMISSIONER KERB, IN THE NEW COURT,
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION :
MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, MB. MONTAGU WILLIAMS,
and MR. STRAIGHT.
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE:
W. DIGBY SEYMOUR, Q.C., MB. SERJEANT PARRY, MB. SERJEANT
SLEIGH and MB. RIGBY.
The Report copied verbatim from THE TIMES.
1)1 PROSE AND BATEMAN, PRINTERS, 13 & 17, PORTUGAL STREET.
PRICE.— ONE SHILLING,
D1PBOSE AND BATEMAN, PBINTERS, 13 & 17, PORTUGAL STREET,
LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS.
THE LIFE OF MAMIE RACHEL
Madame Rachel, the subject of this most extra-
ordinary trial, was born about the year 1806, her father's
name was Russell, he was a man much respected by
his neighbours, being of a very congenial turn of
mind and a great humorist. Miss Russell was first
married to a Mr. Jacob Moses, who was lost in the
ship "Royal Charter," in 1859, off the Welch coast, home-
ward bound from Australia; and afterwards married
Mr. Phillip Levison or Leverson her present husband.
Some years since she lived in the neighbourhood of King's
College Hospital, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and we are given
to understand that about the same time, she and her
family were stricken down by a most fearful fever, which
compelled her and them to seek relief from that Hospital,
when it was found necessary that her head should be
shaved. This greatly distressed her, for she was very
proud of her hair, as well she might be, for her fine
flowing locks were truly beautiful. The medical man,
to pacify her under this severe loss, told her not to mind
it, that he would give her something that should make
her hair grow rapidly and be more beautiful than ever.
When she recovered from the fever, strange to say,
nature was so bountiful that her hair grew most wonder-
fully fast, at which she was so delighted that she asked
the doctor for the receipe, which he gave her. And
now she, like a worldly woman, began to think of turn-
ing it to account, and from this trifling circumstance,
we arc told she commenced coloring grey hair, re
moving wrinkles, cheating old age out of its rights, and
"BEAUTIFUL FOE EVER"
In 1863 Madame Eachel published a pamphlet of 24
pages octavo, entitled " Beautiful for Ever," a copy of
which we have seen and read ; it is an extraordinary
literary performance — a perfect curiosity of its kind —
beating Rowland of old with his Kalydor in puffing.
Herein she flatters women to their heart's content ; she
begins with calling the fair " lovely as the bright sun-
shine [at morning's dawn; beautiful as the dew-drops
on the flowers ; so beautiful is lovely woman. Poets
have praised her, artists have portrayed her, bards have
sung her praises. She is the sculptor's beau ideal ;
volumes have been written of her, volumes still are to
be written of her ! "
She says "Our first mother of the world, who claimed
our love and pity for her beauty and sorrow, was a
beautiful woman. From the beginning of the world
she was the companion of man's youth, the solace of
age. She is man's guiding star — gentle, loving woman,
who, by her gentle counsel, leads men to deeds of great-
ness and renown."
After this rhapsody on woman she brings in mother
Eve by the hair of her head, and eulogises her as being
the most charming creature that ever existed ; then she
introduces her Majesty and the Royal Family with the
most fulsome flattery, and next we find her among the
Grim Tartars — the Sisters of Mercy — Florence Nightin-
gale— Jessie Maclean, the heroine of Lucknow — and
Grace Darling, of the Longstone Lighthouse, whom
she calls Grace by name and Grace by nature — how
pretty and how witty — the poor ballet girl Smith of the
Princess's Theatre now conies in for her meed of praise
for sacrificing her life in trying to extinguish the
flames that enveloped her unfortunate companion. She
forgets not to talk of frail and penitent woman — led on
to repentance by the beautiful of the beautiful — bright
faith, hope and charity — and now for a touch of the
sentimental from Othello — " Nought extenuate and
nought set down in malice." After a few words on the
mental beauties of women, she goes on to say " It is
our pleasing duty to embellish and add to their personal
charms." Next comes the lovely, erring and repentant
Magdalen, and another touch of the sentimental, bor-
rowed this time from Tom Hood —
" Take her up tenderly,
Lift her with care ;
Fashioned so slenderly,
Young and so fair."
After some more edifying matter she puts in
an extract, — taken, as she says, from the Illustrated
London News of January 24th, 1846, — about some
Morocco doctor and his wonderful powers, and then
comes "The Magnetic Dew of Sahara and the Jordan
Water" which are both spoken of in the Trial, as will
be found on reading it through. The " Desert Water
or Liquid Dew" she declares that she has purchased, at
an enormous outlay, from the Government of Morocco,
the exclusive right of using it ; and that it has gained
for her, her world renowned name.
We now come to a dissertation on enamelling the
face which she says she manages to achieve, not by using
dangerous cosmetics, but by the use of the Arabian
Baths, composed of pure extracts of the liquid of
flowers, choice and rare herbs, and other preparations
equally harmless and efficacious, and tries to support her
plan by Dr. Jenner's discovery of vaccination and Sir
Hugh Middleton's bringing the new river water (not
the waters of the Jordan) to London.
She next informs us that almost all Cosmetics (except
her own) are composed of deadly leads and other in-
jurious matters, but that her preparations are made up
of the purest, rarest, and most fragrant productions of
the East — far beyond the confines of Wapping. She
now, by way of peroration, invites all ladies who have
become wall-flowers to place themselves under her
hands, and tells them plainly that she can remove all
personal defects, put a bloom on old visages, so as to
make them look young again as in their youthful days,
and thus manufacture antiquated belles into charming
juveniles — pretty girls scarcely out of their teens. Such
is a condensed epitome of this rich and rare pamphlet,
which has for its object one of the greatest, if not the
greatest, wonders of the age, as its title shows, for what
can be more wonderful than to make woman
"BEAUTIFUL FOR EVER."
We will now give a brief list of Madame Rachel's
cosmetics, &c., and their remarkably low charges :—
WASHES FOE THE COMPLEXION.
£ s. d.
Circassian Beauty "Wash ... ... ... 110
Armenian Liquid for removing Wrinkles ... ... ... 110
Sultana's Beauty Wash ... 110
Blauchinette Wash 110
Magnetic Rock Dew Water of Sahara, for removing
Liquid Flowers and Herbs for the Bath ... ... ... 110
Pure Extracts of the China Eose 110
Alabaster Liquid ... ... ... ... 110
Do Lentla Wash 110
Soothing Balms, for removing Irritation and Ecdncss
from the Skin 110
POWDEES FOE THE COMPLEXION.
Arab Bloom Powder 110
Favorite of the Harem's Pearl White 110
Albanian Powder ... ... ... ... ... ... 110
Disinfecting Powder, of the choicest Arabian odours ... 05 G
Prepared Sponge, for the Complexion ... ... ... 056
Indian Coal, for the Eyes 220
Chinese Leaves for the cheeks and lips ... 110
Youth and Beauty Bloom 220
Circassian Powder for the hands and nails 220
DENTEIFICES AND MOUTH WASHES.
Teeth Enamel 110
Arabian Perfume Wash • 220
Pearly Tooth Powder 110
Balmy Eeed Powder 110
Circassian Golden Hair Wash ••« ••• 220
Madagascar, Arabian, Circassian, and Armenian Oils ... 220
Preservative Cream ... ... ... ... ... ... 220
Medicated Cream for rendering the hair black or chesnut
brown ... 220
Astringents and stimulents^for rendering the hair Italian
CEEAMS FOB THE FACE.
Lily Cream .. ... 220
Sweet Jasmine Cream
Eugenie's Cream 220
Alexandra Cream 220
Youth and Beauty Cream 220
Eoyal Arabian Cream 220
Senses of Peace 220
Arabian, Circassian, and American Oils for the Hair, and
Eoseate Unguent 220
Eoyal Bath Preparations ... 220
The Eoyal Arabian Toilet of Beauty as arranged by
Madame Rachel for the Sultana of Turkey, the fac-
simile of which is used by the Eoyal European
Brides, from 100 to 1,000 guineas
EOTAL AEABIAN SOAP.
Eoyal Nursery Soap 220
Victoria Soap 220
Alexandra Soap 220
Honey of Mount Hymettus Soap 220
Peach Blossom Soap 220
Alabaster Soap 220
Herb Soaps for removing Wrinkles ... 220
Eoyal Bridal Bath Soap 220
Albanian Soap 220
Pure Extracts of Herbs for Preserving and Enhancing
the Skin 220
Sultana's Bouquets ... ... 110
Favourite of the Harem's Bouquet ... ... ... 110
Fragrance of the Sweetest Flowers ... ... ... 220
Vinegars for the Sick Eoom 110
Arabian Fumigated Oils 220
Bridal Toilet Cabinets, arranged from 25 to 200 guineas.
Wardrobe and Jewel-case Odour ... ... 550
Souvenir de Marriage from 25 to 100 guineas.
Betrothal Presents 550
Maiden's Keepsake 2 2 0
Aromatic G-um (per ounce) 0 10 0
Pure Oil of Myrrh 1 1 0
Egyptian Kohl 5 5 0
Jordan Water (per bottle), 10 to 20 guineas.
Venus's Toilet, 10 to 20 guineas.
Such is Madame Kachel's theory and remedies for the
restoration and preservation of female loveliness.
TEIAL OF MADAME EACHEL
BEFOKE MR. COMMISSIONER KERR,
IN THE NEW COURT,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 18B8.
And three following days.
Sarah Rachel Leveison, 43, better known as Madame
Rachel, was again placed upon her trial for having un-
lawfully obtained from Mary Tucker Borradaile the sum
of £1,400 by means of false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Montagu Williams and
Mr. Straight again appeared for the prosecution; Mr.
Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Serjeant
Sleigh, and Mr. Butler Rigby were counsel for the
It will be remembered that in consequence of the
jury having failed to return a verdict upon the last
occasion they were discharged, and the defendant was
now again put upon her trial. She appeared to be very
weak and ill, and was allowed to sit during the day.
The Court was crowded, but not inconveniently so.
Lord Ranelagh occupied a seat on one of the side
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE, in opening the case, said it
would be idle to suppose that what had occurred in
reference to the prosecution was unknown to the jury,
because it had occupied a great deal of public attention,
many comments had been made upon it in the press,
and in all probability the jury themselves had formed
such views upon it as in their judgment seemed correct.
To ask them, then, to dismiss all knowledge of the
matter from their attention would be useless, but this
he might ask them, and ask them with the most perfect
confidence, too — namely, to pay the fullest attention to
the evidence which would be adduced in the progress
of the trial, and not to assume that they were already
acquainted with the whole of the facts of the case. And
he was the more anxious to say this at the outset be-
cause there were some small points to which he would
have to draw their particular attention — points which
had not hitherto been considered, matters that might
probably have great weight on their minds in guiding
them to a decision. The case was one of the most ex-
traordinary which had ever been brought into a court of
justice — not that it involved a great catastrophe or a grave
crime, but that it was one of such a remarkable nature as
to require their minds to be applied to every part of it in
a manner the most assiduous. The main prosecutrix was
a Mrs. Borradaile, a lady whose late husband had been
an officer of distinction serving in India. She was,
moreover, the daughter of an officer, so that she might
be said to be a person of the highest respectability. As
an officer's widow, she was entitled to the receipt of a
comparatively small pension, besides which she had a
sum of money amounting to between £3,000 and £4,000,
part of which was in the funds, and the other part was
sunk in an estate ; in addition she had some jewellery,
clothes, and other property, so that, in all probability,
at the time of the particular transactions in question she
was worth somewhere about £5,000. With respect to the
defendant, her name was Sarah Eachel Leverson, but
she was more generally known as Madame Sarah
Kachel, and tolerably well known, too, as a person who
has a shop in New Bond-street, with a considerable dis-
play of powders and soaps for sale. She professed in
her advertisements to be able to do divers incredible
things, probably things which were not very likely to
deceive persons with strong, cultivated minds, but which
were not unlikely to deceive those to whom those ad-
vertisements were specially addressed. The character
of those advertisements was confined to the fair sex,
professing to make them " beautiful for ever," whether
they were old or young, by means of powders and other
stuff from Arabia. This was the miraculous effect they
were to have on the faces of the ladies, — this was the
description she gave in her advertisements. Now Mrs.
Borradaile, unfortunately for her, had been, no doubt a
handsome woman in her more youthful days, and was
still anxious to continue so ; and she, seeing advertise-
ments of this promising description, was introduced to
Madame Rachel. The first introduction was early in
1864 or 1865. There was nothing then purchased, but
subsequent interviews enabled Madame Rachel to obtain
an insight into her character which induced her to work
upon her feelings afterwards in a manner almost mirac-
ulous. From this insight, for instance, she learnt that
Mrs. Borradaile was possessed of the amount of money
already mentioned. In 18G6 Mrs. Borradaile called on
her again, and made some purchases, and then Madame
Rachel suggested a mode by which she could be made
" beautiful for ever," asking for £1,000 for making her so.
Mrs. Borradaile was not unwilling to be made " beautiful,
for ever," but as she did not like to part with the £1,000, a
remarkable element was brought to bear upon her.
Madame Rachel said she had been seen by a nobleman
who had become enamoured of her. Mrs. Borradaile
was naturally surprised, but glad to find that a nobleman
had taken a liking to her. Madame Rachel told her the
nobleman was Lord Ranelagh — a nobleman well known
and that she would introduce her to him ; and accor-
dingly, before any of the transactions occurred which
formed the subject matter of this indictment, Lord
Ranelagh was one day talking to two ladies in Madame
Rachel's shop, one of these being Miss Rachel (the
prisoner's daughter), and the other a lady whose name
he (the learned Serjeant) did not like to mention now,
though it had come out on the last occasion, and then
and there Madame Rachel introduced Mrs. Borradaile
to that nobleman. Upon that interview the whole pivot
of this case turned ; and, therefore, he entreated the
jury to look well to what occurred at it. That there
would be a discrepancy in the evidence as to what then
occurred might at once be admitted. Mrs. Borradaile
would tell them that she then entertained some doubt
that the person to whom she was introduced was Lord
Ranelagh, whereupon he put his hand in his pocket, took
out a card, and handed it to her ; and then she would
add that she read his name upon that card. It would
be denied that any card was handed to her by his
lordship at that time. His learned friend (Mr. Digby
Seymour) had said upon the last occasion that it was
not consistent with the ordinary habits of society for a
nobleman to hand his card under such circumstances.
He (Mr. Serjeant Ballantine) agreed with his learned
friend in that respect, and admitted candidly that it was
extraordinary and unusual to do so ; but then was it
not equally extraordinary and unusual for a nobleman
like Lord Banelagh to be introduced under such circum-
stances ? In point of fact, the whole interview was
extraordinary, but then the jury would have to say — not
what it was — but whether or not they credited Mrs.
Borradaile. It was quite evident that Lord Kanelagh
might forget that he handed his card, but then it was
most probable that Mrs. Borradaile would not forget a
fact which which to her was so important. This brought
him to a matter upon which he thought it right at once
to state the views of the prosecution. He asked them
to believe Mrs. Borradaile upon the ground that she had
been a virtuous wife, and since her husband's death a
virtuous widow, and that the slightest stain or slur could
not be cast upon her. It was true that charges against
her had been whispered, but he challenged his learned
friend to show that she had clone anything on any single
occasion contrary to the principles of honour, integrity,
or truth. If, then, she was telling that which was
untrue, she was running the fearful risk of being indicted
for perjury, because she alleged that the card was given
to her in the presence of two ladies, one of them the
daughter of the prisoner. If the assertion was a fabrica-
tion on her part, the daughter could come forward on
the mother's side and contradict it. But there were
other facts. On another occasion Lord Ranelagh was
pointed out to Mrs. Borradaile in Madame Eachel's
shop, and upon a third occasion there was something
said between his lordship and the prosecutrix touching
theatricals at Beaufort House. These were the only
occasions upon which his lordship seemed to have ap-
peared upon the scene. Mrs. Borradaile at this time
became perfectly satisfied that Madame Rachel had told
her the truth, that her beauty had attracted Lord
Kanelagh, and that his lordship had intimated from
time to time that he had never seen any woman besides
Mrs. Borradaile who would be such an honor and credit
to hisname. Itnowbecame important thatMrs Borradaile
should be acted upon so as to produce her money.
From the first occasion, when she had been told that
she could be made "beautiful for ever," and that if so
made Lord Ranelagh would marry her, her mind began
to work. £200 had then been paid by her, but £1 ,000 was
asked to make her "beautiful for ever," and to raise the
necessary funds Madame Rachel introduced her to a
solicitor named Haynes, of St. James'-street, who met
her at a stockbroker's in the city and sold out £1,460
worth of her stock for £980, £800 of which found its
way into Madame Rachel's hands, and for this the
paltry equivalent given consisted of some powders and
soap. Lord Ranelagh was supposed to have written a
variety of letters with the view of enabling Madame
Rachel to carry out this fraud ; and if it could be
proved that his lordship was held out, not as the whole
of the false pretences, but as a false pretence, to effect
this fraud, that would be quite sufficient to sustain the
present indictment. It was true there was no pretence
for supposing that his lordship had written any of the
letters, for, independently of there being no proof that
he was the writer of them, the letters themselves showed
upon the face of them that they were not the productions
of an educated man. The first letter was very warmly
penned, and it was signed "William" — a fictitious name
by which it was said Lord Ranelagh wished to be known
throughout the transactions. (The letters were here al-
luded to at some length, and some of them created
much laughter, but, as they were inserted in extenso in
the Times on the last occasion, it is unnecessary to
introduce them now.) The learned counsel continued
to state that Madame Rachel never ceased to act upon
the unfortunate Mrs. Borradaile until the whole of her
property, amounting to £5,300, was engulfed, including
the mortgage of her pension. Clothes, plate, jewels,
pension — all were gone, and she was literally penniless,
except what she might get in future from the bounty of
her friends. Even then Madame Rachel was not satis-
fied. Lord Ranelagh's name was again introduced.
Two or three scandalous stories were invented about
his lordship having seen her in a bath, and about his
having been intimate with her on a former occasion.
Madame Rachel was determined that so long as there
were clothes on her back, or money at her command, or
the possibility of raising it, not a fraction, either in esse
or in prospective, should belong to her. Accordingly
she suggested to her the propriety of executing a bond,
and a bond she actually executed in favor of Rachel for
a further sum of £1,600. In the short space of three
months she had been swindled out of £5,300, and now
she caused a bond, which she was very unlikely to pay,
to be suspended over her head. But now the climax
was arriving. There was nothing more to be got out of
her. She stood in her clothes. The money and stock
were gone. All was swallowed up. Then it was that
an application was sworn by Rachel, upon which she
was thrown into prison, from which she was released by
virtually handing over her pension to Rachel for the re-
mainder of her life. In the whole category of human
wickedness and human folly the equal of this story was
undiscoverable. He believed the defence was, not that
every half-penny of the money, together with the bond,
did not come into the possession of Rachel, but that neither
the money nor the bond was obtained by means of false
pretences. The defence was that it was obtained because
Mrs. Borradaile was a woman of loose habits, who was
willing to prostitute herself, who had carried on an inter-
course for months with a man, and that the sums of
money handed to Rachel were so handed to her for the
purpose of being used in some way by the person calling
himself '-'William." This was the defence the last
time, and it would most probably be the defence now ;
at all events, if it were not the defence now, it was
impossible to know what the defence would be. This
presented the prisoner in this, position — as a person
allowing her house to be used for interviews between
ladies and gentlemen, and herself promoting those in-
terviews by all the means in her power, and sharing
with one of the persons carrying on the interviews the
profits of the transaction. There were certainly places
of that kind in London, but then the bulk of them all
was called by a less savoury name than that of a " per-
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR here complained that the learned
Serjeant was entirely mistaking the grounds of the de
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE said that whatever the de-
fence might be, on this he would take his stand — that
no such person as " William " existed, or ever did exist ;
that Mrs. Borradaile had never departed from honour ;
that she had never carried on any intrigue with any
person on the broad surface of London ; and that, on
her solemn oath, she would state that the whole thing
was a wicked fabrication. If there was a real " Wil-
liam " — not a myth and a fiction — why did not Madame
Rachel give some evidence respecting him ? If he was
a real " William" he must have been a William in the
flesh, and then there would have been no necessity for
all the letters to have been written. Besides, why should
he have allowed Mrs. Borradaile's money to filter through
Madame Rachel's hands ? The jury would bear in mind
that the letters had been written in three different hand-
writings, and that from the evidence of a lad who wrote
one of them there was some proof to shew that " Wil-
liam " was the concoction of Madame Rachel's brain.
They would also bear in mind that if Madame Rachel
should now be convicted Mrs. Borradaile would in no
way be bettered, but that she would still remain the
beggared widow of an Indian officer. The learned ser-
jeant concluded by expressing a hope that the verdict of
the jury would be found effectual in the future in throw-
ing the shield of the law round the many, many weak
women who in this great metropolis were duped by the
cunning of the artful and the deceptive.
After keeping the Court waiting for about three-
quarters of an hour,
Mrs. Mary Tucker Borradaile, the prosecutrix, entered
the witness-box and was sworn. She said, in reply to
questions put by Mr. MONTAGU WILLIAMS, — In 1864
I first went to the prisoner's shop. I am the widow of
an officer, and was six years with him, in India. I spent
£170 with the prisoner in 1864 and 1865, and only got
for it some soap and powder. In May, 1866, she asked
me to spend some more money with her, but I told her
I expected her to do something for my skin for the £170
I had already laid out at her shop. She told me to call
again, and when I did so she said Lord Ranelagh had
taken a liking to me. I asked where he had seen me.
She said he had seen me several times, both before and
after my marriage, and that he was a very good man.
When I called again Lord Ranelagh was present. Miss
Rachel and Madame Valeria were both in the shop
with Lord Ranelagh. Madame Rachel was in the little
sitting-room, and I went in and sat with her, the door
being shut. She said to me, " I will now introduce you
to the man that loves you," and upon that she opened
the door and introduced me to Lord Ranelagh. She
said, " This is Lord Ranelagh." I saw Lord Ranelagh
at the last trial, and he was the nobleman who was then
introduced to me. I see him now in court. I said at
the time of the introduction, " Are you Lord Ranelagh ?"
He said, " I am," and he handed me his card. I am quite
certain he handed me his card. Madame Valeria must
have seen the card. When I had read it I handed it back
to his lordship, and returned to the sitting-room, where
Madame Rachel said he would make me a very good
husband. Two days afterwards I saw Lord Ranelagh
again. Madame Rachel then asked me to take a bath,
and I did so. There was some talk after the bath about
going to the Beaufort-house theatricals, but Lord
Ranelagh said they were not good enough for me.
Shortly afterwards Madame Rachel asked me to be
made beautiful for ever, in order that I might be made
the suitable wife of Lord Ranelagh. I thought £1,000
a large sum of money, and she said Mr. Haynes, an
attorney, who was not a friend of hers, would sell out
£1,300 of stock I held. I went with Mr. Haynes and
Madame Rachel to the city and sold out the £1,300
stock for £980, £20 of which went in costs. No part
of that £960 was ever handed over to me afterwards.
Mr. Haynes brought me an order, which I signed, and
by that order the whole of the £960 was authorised by
me to be handed over to Madame Rachel. A receipt
for £800, stated to be the balance of £1,000, was given
me, which purported to be for a supply of cosmetics,
bath preparations, attendance, and enamelling, to be
continued until I should be finished by the process. (A
laugh.) I only got some soap and powders for my
money. I dare say J had 100 of the baths. (Laughter.)
None of the powders were put into the baths. The
powders were said to have come from Arabia. Madame
Rachel said I was to be married by proxy, and that the
courtship was to be conducted by letter. About a
fortnight after I paid the money I began to receive the
letters. Madame Rachel always told me that the letters
which were signed " William " had come from Lord
Ranelagh. The letters never came to me through the
post. They were always given to me by the prisoner.
The handful of letters which were produced on the last
occasion were written by me, as I thought, to Lord
Ranelagh, and they were given by me to Madame
Rachel upon the understanding that she would give them
to his lordship. All the letters I wrote to him were
dictated to me by Madame Rachel, who always said
they would be delivered by her to him. When I com-
plained to her about the bad spelling of some of his
lordship's letters she accounted for it by saying that he
had injured his arm and had to employ an uneducated
amanuensis. Mention was -made in one letter about
Belgium, and she explained that by saying his lordship
was going there on business connected with the Volun-
teers. I bought £400 worth of lace, and paid for it.
That was to be part of my trousseau but I never
received a yard of it. It found its way into Madame
Rachel's hands, but where it got to afterwards she never
told me, and I never could find out. The allusion in one
of the letters about the lace had reference to its being
redeemed from a pawnbroker in the Strand. I received
a great many other letters from Madame Rachel pur-
porting to come from the same source, but I always re-
turned them to her. In July or August we had a
conversation about diamonds. Madame Rachel said
that I should want some for the wedding, and a necklace
and coronet were ordered of Mr. Pike accordingly.
When the jewels were brought to her house Madame
Rachel put them on me and asked me how I liked them.
The price of them was £1,260. I had no money at this
time, but had property, of which Madame Rachel
knew. In consequence of what was then said I
went to Mr. Haynes, the solicitor, and consulted him
about selling the property. It was sold for £1,540, and
I gave him an order for £1,400 to pay for the diamonds,
&c. The order produced was written on the suggestion
of Madame Rachel, and in her shop. I never received
the diamonds. I asked her what had become of the
money. She said that it was required for " William," and
I think she added for the purposes of the Volunteers. I
paid her on one occasion £32 for ornaments for the hair
which I never received. She had other money from me
at times, which she said was for Lord Kanelagh. She
said a great many things would be required for my
trousseau. I paid £160 to the Messrs. Hamilton, of
Conduit-street, for dresses and clothing which I never
saw. They were left at Madame Rachel's. I remember
a Mr. Proctor, a linendraper, coming there in July,
1866, with a quantity of ladies' wearing apparel, the
price of which was also about £160. I never got one
of the articles myself. I often asked her where they
had gone to, and Madame Rachel's answer? were that
" Dear William " had them. I remember Madame
Rachel taking me to a carriage-builder's in New Bond-
street for the purpose of selecting a carriage for the
wedding. She got into one and said she thought that
would do. It was to have Lord Ranelagh's arms
painted upon it. She afterwards took me to see a
house which she said was for me and Lord Ranelagh.
I approved it, thinking it a nice place for two people.
I had a quantity of plate, which belonged to my late
husband, and a silver tea service which I purchased in
Bond-street. It was taken away from my lodgings.
Madame Rachel said it was not such as was suited for
me. She thought, from what I had said about it, that
it was much better. She said that all the things were
to be put away together for the wedding. I had rings
and jewellery, which she obtained in the same manner,
and also my marriage settlement. I have seen none of
this property since. There were some family seals and
other things, as well as letters of my late husband's,
which Madame Rachel obtained and packed up, as she
said, for the wedding. On several occasions she gave
me a cigar. I recollect her giving me one in February
of this year. It was lighted, and as she gave it to me
she said, " Here comes Lord Ranelagh." I saw a
person pass out of the door at the time, but I could not
see his face. Madame Rachel said the cigar was as
warm as his love. (A laugh.) In December I exe-
cuted a bond to Madame Kachel for £1,600. She had
got me to sign I O U's previously, and those were
destroyed on the bond being given instead. I have not
seen the bond since. She always spoke of what she
was going to do for me with the money. I was arrested
about this time, and taken to the prison in Whitecross-
street, at the instance of the prisoner. She came to see
me while I was confined there, and remained with me
on one occasion nearly the whole of the day. I was
induced while there to execute another document, as
she said I could not get out unless I signed. I was
liberated, but was again arrested while Madame Kachel
was under remand from the police-court in Marl-
borough-street. It was for £15 for goods which had
been ordered by Madame Rachel, but which I never saw.
I never knew or conversed with any other " William "
except the person who was introduced to me by Madame
Kachel. I never had any intercourse with any person
either at Cheltenham or elsewhere. I remember a man
named Stephens and another, who Madame Kachel said
were Lord Kanelagh's servants. She told me his lord-
ship had said in their presence that he intended to
marry me. She afterwards said that the diamonds I had
purchased would not be wanted for the wedding, but
that there was a coronet belonging to Lord Kanelagh's
mother which would answer the purpose, if the stones
were reset. I parted with the whole of my money and
jewellery, together with the bond and valuable securities,
solely on the representations made to me by Madame
On the conclusion of Mrs. Borradaile's evidence, a
number of letters were handed to her for the purposes
of identification. She hesitated considerably before she
answered the questions put to her by Mr. Digby
Seymour for the defence, and said that some of the
letters were like her handwriting, but she could not
swear to them positively. She never wrote a letter
except on the suggestion of Madame Kachel. Madame
Kachel had great influence over her, and she always
At this stage the trial was adjourned till this (Tues-
At the opening of the court this morning the trial,
begun yesterday, of Sarah Rachel Levison, better known
as Madame Rachel, for obtaining from Mary Tucker
Borradaile money to the amount of about £1,400 by
certain false and fraudulent pretences, and with intent to
defraud, was resumed.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Montagu Williams, and
Mr. Straight again conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Serjeant
Sleigh, and Mr. Butler Rigby the defence.
The court was again crowded, many of the audience
being ladies, as on the previous trial. Lord Ranelagh
again occupied a seat on a side bench.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, Q.C., addressing the Court, said
he had to mention a matter in the interest of his client,
if not in his own interest. He referred, he said, to a
charge made against him in one of the daily papers, and
which was calculated, he thought, to prejudice the
minds of the jury. He might add, as his learned friend
(Mr. Serjeant Parry) had reminded him, that Judges
had repeatedly condemned comments by the public
press in reference to a trial which was still pending.
Mr. MONTAGU WILLIAMS said his leader (Mr. Ser-
jeant Ballantine) had not yet arrived, and he would
only say in his absence, that he had no doubt the public
papers would take care of themselves.
Mr. Commissioner Kerr. — I can only say, Mr. Sey-
mour, if it be any satisfaction to you, that I did not see
in your cross-examination of the prosecutrix yesterday
anything in the slightest degree objectionable.
Mrs. Borradaile was then recalled, and her cross-
examination was continued. Replying to Mr. DIGBY
SEYMOUR, she said, — I first called on Madame Rachel
in May or June, 1864. I heard very little about her
except from advertisements. I recollect her giving me
a book and my paying her half-a-crown for it. [The
Commissioner. — Then you bought the book.] I think I
did. She never said anything about 1,000 guineas until
she told me I was to be made "beautiful for ever/' and
that I was to marry this good and rich man, meaning
Lord Ranelagh. She told me 1,000 guineas was her
charge for enamelling. I never heard her say anything
about 1,000 guineas. She did not say anything as to
the time of the process. (A laugh.) I did not know
what she was going to do. I cannot tell you how many
baths I took. I took a great many. She said it was
necessary for me to be made " beautiful for ever," but
I told her in 1866 I did not intend expending £10 upon
her, and that I thought she should do something for the
£170 which I had paid her and which I thought was a
great deal. For that, all that I got was a few powders
and soaps. Between that and May, 1866 I had not
contracted any fresh liabilities to her. [Letter read,
dated May, 1866, and which witness said was in her
handwriting] was as follows :
" 4, Francis-street, London-street, Paddington, May,
" My dear Rachel, — My husband, Colonel Borradaile,
died the 17th of May, 1861. Will proved by Mr.
Nelson, city solicitor, whose brother lives in Grace-
church-street, to whom I refer you, and he will arrange
every thing to your satisfaction. I was left sole execu-
trix to all he possessed in the world. He left one will
in London with his nephew and Mr. J. C. Borradaile,
Blackheath, and the other in India. I refer you to my
mother, who resides at Scaley, Ham, near Haverford
west, Pembrokeshire, South Wales. I am related to
Lord Kensington, who resides in London. Therefore,
my dear Rachel, you may feel assured I am mistress of
my own actions, and may do what I think proper with
my own, and this will at once convince you that I can
fulfil my promises, and carry out any arrangement with
you that I have entered into."
That letter was written in Madame Rachel's shop, but
she told me to direct it from 4, Francis-street, Padding-
ton. I had been staying there for a few days. I do not
know whether it is a coffee-shop ; I do not know what
it is. You can say nothing against my character. I
cannot say whether it is a place with the word "beds "
written over the door. I think the name of a coffee-
house is over the door. A railway porter recommended
me to go there. On the night I wrote that letter I was
staying at 28, George -street. I had not been able to get
rooms at the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, at the
top of the house, and it was too expensive for me to
take them on the first or second floor there. I went
therefore to what I thought was a respectable lodging.
I had left the coffeehouse when I wrote the letter. I
.always addressed my letters as Madame Rachel directed
me ; I was so foolish. She is a wicked and vile woman,
and you (addressing Mr. Digby Seymour) are bad too.
The COMMISSIONER. — Content yourself with simply
.answering the questions.
"Witness. — I wrote all the letters at Madame Rachel's
shop, and all were dated from other places. I cannot
tell what her object was in asking me to direct the letter
from Francis-street. Lord Kensington is a descendant
of a younger branch of our family. All that you have
read in that letter is true.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Did she not require from you a state-
ment and particulars to enable her to make enquiries
whether she could trust you that 1,000 guineas ?
Witness. — She found out all about me. I could not
tell what her object was.
Was there a bill given by you for £1,000, composed
of £800 you owed to Madame Rachel and about £200
you were indebted to a Mrs. Hamilton ? — Nothing of
the sort. I recollect Mr. Haynes paid Rachel £800,
.and that was in addition to what I had before paid her.
I remember Mr. Haynes had to do with paying Mrs.
A letter you wrote to Mr. Haynes refers to the
destruction of certain bills and I O U's ; what do you
mean by that ?
By the COMMISSIONER. — I have no idea what a com-
mercial bill is.
Cross-examination continued. — I do not recollect
writing a bill before June. I came to London about
the 15th of May, 1866 — not later. I never knew Lord
Eanelagh before that time. Next December it will be
22 years since I was married, and I have been seven
years a widow. I had not lived long in India ; I was
in bad health. I had gone the overland route. I moved
in good society there, but I had bad health and never
went out to parties or balls. The first time I saw Lord
Ranelagh was about the middle of the day, and that
was at Madame Rachel's. I was in the sitting-room, a
small room off the shop with a glass door. The shop
itself is a small place. The door was closed when I was
sitting there. It was opened, and I expected to see the
man who was in love with me, and who was expected to
marry me. I asked him if he was Lord Ranelagh, and
he said he was and gave me his card. I had asked him
to give me his card, thinking Madame Kachel had told
me what was not true. I did not exactly believe her at
the time. I cannot explain why I did not keep the card.
He certainly did give me the card, and I gave it back to
him. I cannot say why. I left, the door was closed,
and I resumed my seat in the little room. I did not go
into the shop. I was never introduced to a gentleman
before who gave me his card. I never thought much
about it. A few days afterwards I saw Lord Ranelagh
at Madame Eachel's again. Madame Kachel \v&s pre-
sent. It was only to be introduced again — that was
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Did you hear anything endearing
from Lord Ranelagh ?
Witness. — It was too soon, I thought. (A laugh.)
All that he did was to make his bow to me. Witness
continued. Madame Rachel said there were some
theatricals going on at Beaufort-house, and he said he
thought they were not good enough for me. I did not
speak to him again until I saw him in Mr. Cridland's
office. Madame Rachel said he had often seen me. Of
course, I thought he was going to marry me. I saw
him very often at Madame Rachel's. He was to have
dined with me one day at St. James's-hall. Madame
Rachel told me he had plenty of money. I afterwards
found he was poor, and it then occurred to me that
Madame Rachel had told me what was not true. That
was about October, 1866. She always told me the man
adored me. I don't think I quite disbelieved what she
told me. (A laugh.) I cannot say ; I really forget. [A
letter was here read signed " William," and addressed
from Birdcage-walk. It ran thus : — " What is it, my
sweet love ? My own dear one, what you said last
night I thought was in joke. Is it the bill that has
annoyed you?"] I had not met Lord Ranelagh the
night before. I could not understand a great many of
the letters. I thought a great deal in them was remark-
able. It was about September, 1866, that I wrote the
letter in which I said I had called at Madame Rachel's
" and she looked as black as thunder."
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Do you mean to tell the Court
the letters you received were the productions of Lord
Ranelagh ? — Yes, I do.
Do you think Lord Ranelagh would employ a servant
to write a letter to his intended wife ? — Madame Rachel
swore to me most solemnly it was the case that he did.
I have occasionally seen a Peerage Lord Ranelagh's
name is Thomas Heron Jones. Thomas would have
done as well as William. My maiden name was
Edwardes. It was Madame Rachel who suggested that
the name of Captain William Edwardes should be used.
He is now a colonel in the Guards, and was here yester-
day. The following letter was read :—
" 4, Francis-street, London-street, May 26
" (postmark May 28), 1866.
" My clear Love, — I am sorry I cannot keep my ap-
pointment with you to-morrow, as I do not think of
staying in these apartments, but I shall have no objec-
tion to meet you any day next week that you may name.
I am perfectly satisfied with the articles. They are all
very good. I have given Madame Eachel what I pro-
mised her, as I like to keep my word, and she has given
me a month's grace. She will not trouble me for a
month for the second promise. I hope we shall have a
quiet day, as it will be more pleasant for me, as before
I do not wish for any intrusion. With my best love,
believe me, yours for ever,
" MARY BORRADAILE."
[This was addressed " Mr. Edwardes, care of Madame
Rachel, 47 (a), New Bond- street."] I do not recollect
writing that, but I suppose I did. I cannot swear it is
my writing. I cannot swear either way. It may be
my writing, I never recollect directing a letter to Mr.
Edwardes. On the 26th of May, 1866, I think I was
not lodging in Francis-street. I was six days at a coffee-
house near the Paddington-station. After that I went
to 4, Francis-street, where I was four days, and I after-
wards went to the address in Great George-street. I
cannot say whether I was at 4, Francis-street. I never
wrote a letter there. I could not then say I was about
to give up my apartments. I had not seen any
" William," and I cannot explain what the words, " I
do not wish for any intrusion " means.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Then, that was a falsehood dictated
by Madame Eachel ?
Witness. — Of course, it was ; she is quite equal to
that. She always said I must trust to her. I really
forget all about the letter. [A letter was here read,
dated 28, George-street, Hanover-square, September
1, 1866, and which witness thought was her letter.
It ran thus : — " My dear William, — I am surprised
and grieved at what you say, that I place more confi-
dence in Mr. Haynes than yourself so far. I have
not seen htm since Thursday, when I saw him at Mr.
Clayton's office, and I do not wish to see him again
without I am obliged to do so, I shall write to him to-
day as Rachel and myself have arranged our affairs
amicably, I assure you I went after taking .my bath
yesterday to the coffeehouse in Davies-street, nearly
opposite to the baths, I went twice to see if I could find
you, and I left word with the bath attendant, Mrs.
Hicks, and I had to wait for her nearly half an hour,
that if you called I had gone to Madame Rachel's, and
in lieu of seeing you I received nothing but unkind up-
braidings, I tell you again and again that it was my
intention to go with you to Grindlay's yesterday, to do
all in my power for you. You know my feelings to-
wards you ; but I cannot do impossibilities. I Have
heard nothing of Mr. Braham, Mr. Roger's Solicitor.
I shall manage to arrange between this and Monday.
In hopes that I shall see you shortly, and with fondest
love, believe me your affectionate and devoted, MARY T.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Did you expect, to find Lord Rane-
lagh at a coffeehouse in Davies-street ?
Witness. — Do you suppose he never goes to such
places ? (A laugh.) She continued. — I say those letters
were all written under the influence of Madame Rachel.
I don't know whether I expected to meet him there or
not. The passage in the same letter, " I tell you again
and again that it was my intention to go with you
to Grindlay's yesterday, to do all I can for you,"
I wrote at the dictation of Madame Rachel,
Grindlay's was a place were my pension was paid. I
had not had any communication the day before with
any one as to going there.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did Madame Rachel find fault
with you for expending your money on a paramour ?
Witness (indignantly). -^What paramour ? I never had
Did she not blame you for expending money on a
paramour ? — No, never.
Or that your family ought to be informed of your ex-
travagance ? — No, never, I will swear she never censured
me for squandering my money on a paramour. I said
on the last occasion she might have mentioned it in my
presence at Mr. Haynes's office, but I did not recollect
it, nor what answer I gave if that was said. Mr. Cope,
my brother-in-law (witness continued to say), came to-
town in September, 1866. A letter, dated in that
month, was read, It ran ; —
" My own dear William, — If you knew what I have
suffered since Saturday night on your account one
unkind word would never have escaped your lips to me..
My brother-in-law went to the Carlton to see Lord
Ranelagh. They told him he was out of town, and
they said he would not be back for a week. My brot-
her then went to New Burlington-street, and a servant
told him there his lordship had been out of town for
three weeks, and that all his letters had been sent to
Lowther Castle . . . You would have been amused
at the frantic manner in which he was running about
town looking for the invisible person who could not be
found, thanks to our lucky stars."
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Who was " the invisible per-
son ?" Witness. — That was Lord Ranelagh.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR continuing to read the letter,—
" Not content with that, he took us to Regent-street
and bought a photo, of his Lordship, whose nose he did
not admire. (Laughter.) Mr. Cope made me promise
to leave my present lodgings, that he was under the
belief that the people at the house and poor Rachel
were in league together in fooling me into a marriage
with Lord Ranelagh." To whom did you then believe
you were writing ?
Witness. — I certainly believed I was writing to Lord
Do you mean to say you were doing that when you
stated your brother-in-law " bought a photo, of his
Lordship, whose nose he did not admire T (A laugh.)
Did you think you were writing to Lord Ranelagh
when you said, — " Mr. Cope and my sister made me
promise I would not see Rachel again, as I led them to
suppose she had been the promoter of his Lordship in
intriguing with me? "
Witness. — I never had any such intrigue, nor with
any other man. She (Rachel) dictated that letter to me
and I thought I was writing to Lord Ranelagh.
Do you consider marriage and intrigue the same thing?"
Witness. — I really do not know much about intrigues.
I don't think they are equivalent expressions. All,
letters were dictaded by Madame, and sometimes I
altered them when I thought the grammar was not good
I knew Madame Rachel got a boy to write letters. I
have seen one or two boys writing there. [A letter
dated September 5, from 36, Davies-street, Berkeley-
square, was read. It said, — "My dear William, — I
have been anxiously waiting to hear from or to see you.
You are very welcome to anything and all that you have
of mine. When I asked to have my letters returned, I
did not mean what I said. It was said only when I
thought you were cold and unkind to me. I did not
deserve it. I have not called upon Mr. Haynes, as my
brother-in-law wished me to do. My family have no
power to control me or my affairs. My husband left
me everything he possessed, and the right of doing what
I thought proper with it, and I shall write to Mr. Haynes
to-day and tell him so. I will wait here until 3 o'clock,
and if you do not come to me I will leave town with-
out you. Perhaps if I do it will not break your heart
Do not mention the patience of Job when you think of
me. I am afraid to go to Rachel's for fear of Mr.
Bauer. She told me yesterday he had an execution
.against me. I offered to give him the lace back,
but he would not take it. With my fond love, believe
me, your affectionate and loving MARY TUCKER
I never had the lace. I may have written that letter.
J only recollect the reference to the patience of Job. I
think Madame Rachel or Mr. Haynes, I forget which
told me something about an execution. I think I had
been served with a writ at the suit of Mr. Bauer. I was
then lodging in George Street. I was four times arrested,
[Another letter, dated September 6, and from 36,
Davies-street, was put in. It said, — " My dear William.
I have just received a letter from my sister Mrs. Cope,
with a postscript from her husband, and he says he will
be in town shortly after I receive it. He comes up in
consequence of Madame Rachel having sent him a copy
of a letter I wrote you just after you left for North
Wales last Monday. She has exposed the whole thing
about the lace. It was most foolish of her exposing my
affairs, but she did it to prevent my being arrested. This
affair has nearly broken my heart."] I recollect that
letter and I recollect the lace, but I had never seen the
lace. I did not expect she had exposed my affairs ta
my family. My brother-in-law never told me I was in-
corrigible, but he thought I was a foolish person. [A
passage from a letter, dated September 13, was read
thus, — " My dear William, I shall see Mrs. Lilly as you
desire, and she will, no doubt be of service to us."] I
stayed four days at the coffee-house, 4 Francis-street.
I never recollect meeting any one there. Mrs. Lilly
may have been the person who waited on me there.
[The letter continued — "You know there are such
things as talking birds. I feel better now that you told
me we shall leave Charing- cross next morning. Will
that morning ever come .... But you seem to
know the overland route to my heart."]
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Who was the author of that
expression, "the overland route to my heart," Mrs.
Borradaile ? (A laugh.)
Witness (smiling).— I don't know
MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — It is a very happy expression,
you know, and you have been to India and back.
Witness. — It was not mine. It was she (Rachel) that
suggested it to me. I am sure I did not.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR referred to a letter dated the
17th of September, from 36, Davies-street, and running
thus :— " My dear William. — I am happy to say your
kind message has made me much happier than I was
yesterday, . . . How could it be otherwise, when
instead of being in Paris I am in my lodgings and you
were ill in bed ? The old saying, " The course of true
love never runs smooth.'" That, of course, was also at
Madame Kachel's dictation ? (A laugh.)
Witness — Yes.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR (reading). — " Even that beastly
Pike (a laugh) followed me into Madame Kachel's, .and
wanted me to purchase the diamonds. He wanted me
to sign for £1,600, but I was not such a fool."
Witness. — I think I have been a very great fool. I
wrote all those letters to Rachel's dictation. Witness
continued, replying to a question, — I had selected some
shirt fronts, but I cannot say where.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — What ! Shirt-fronts for Lord
Ranelagh ? (Laughter.)
Witness. — It is very likely he may want them.
[Shewn an invoice.] I never paid that. They were
sent to my lodgings ; and I would not take them in. I
ordered them but I would not pay for them.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Now listen to this letter. "You had
better get the hats at Johnson's, and whatever you do,
my darling, do it as quickly as possible. My dear Wil-
liam, I am quite ready to start if you will quickly send
me word. I do not wish to live on bad terms with you.
It would not be policy on your part." AVho dictated
that letter ? — Madame Rachel.
Do you mean to say she dictated the words, " It would
not be policy on your part " ? — I think those were put
in by myself, but I am not quite sure.
Then is it the fact that, though she dictated, you put
in some sentences of your own ? — I sometimes improved
a sentence, but she always dictated.
The next letter is written to Madame Rachel. It says,
" I told him (Lord Ranelagh) that you (Rachel) had
many good qualities, that you were fond of your chil-
dren, and gave to the poor." Do you mean to swear
that that letter was written by ycri to Rachel at Rachel's
dictation 1 — I do.
Then it appears that all the letters written by you to
William, to Rachel, and to everybody else were written
at Rachel's dictation ? — That is so. Madame Rachel
told me on one occasion, in a friendly manner, that she
was 80 years of age. (A laugh.)
And did you believe her ? — I did not.
What did you say ? — I told her I was 68 myself.
Then you were 12 years her junior. Now, here is a
letter dated the 29th of September. Was that written
by you ? — I cannot say ; it is like my handwriting.
Do you mean to say you don't know your own hand-
writing ? — I can only'say it looks very like my writing.
It is dated from George- street, Hanover-square, and
in it you say to Lord Ranelagh, " I am surprised at
Madame Rachel's impertinence ; she had no right to be
impertinent to you." Who dictated that? — Madame
What ! Madame Rachel dictated that she had been
impertinent to his lordship ? — Yes.
Then there comes this passage, " Tear yourself away
from the little lady with the golden hair who is in the
habit of scratching your face." (A laugh.) Who is
this " little lady with the golden hair ? " Is it yourself ?
— No ; somebody else.
The COMMISSIONER. — Oh ! then there is a little lady in
the case with golden hair, who scratches Lord Ranelagh's
face ? (Laughter.) Did you say you wrote that letter
to Lord Ranelagh ? — I did.
Was it exclusively intended for him ? — It was.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — Who was it told you there was a
little lady with golden hair who was in the habit of
scratching his face ? — Madame Rachel.
And she dictated that letter ?— Yes.
In the next letter, dated the 3rd of October, 1866,
you say, " My dear William, — Madame Rachel had, as
usual, some very high words with me to-day ; indeed, it
was a serious quarrel, and all concerning you." Is that
true ? — She dictated the letter to me.
Yes, but you say here " as usual ; " was it, then, usual
for you and .Rachel to have high words ? — It was not.
What was this particular quarrel about ? — I do not
The COMMISSIONER. — Then, was what you say about
the " high words " an invention ? — I don't recollect what
the quarrel was about.
Mr. SEYMOUR. — In the next letter to Lord Ranelagh
you say " Rachel wishes Mr. Haynes to write to you to
return my property and money, I asked her how dare
she or any one else to take such a liberty with me as to
ask you to return my property and money. Therefore,
my darling, whatever you hear from them on this
subject, dont mind them. I am quite ready to meet
you wherever you like, but don't let it be at that horrid
place where the poor man was killed. I will comply
with your wishes, but if you keep me waiting I will
scold you." Where was this place where the man was
killed ? I do no not know ; I never went to it.
I have now to request your particular attention to
your next letter to Lord Ranelagh, in which you say,
" One of your kind friends, and your bosom companions,
has informed me that you have been are now keeping a
woman. Not one member of my family will hold any
intercourse with me for forming such a degraded con-
nexion. Did you then think that it would have been a '
degraded connexion to marry Lord Ranelagh ? — Well,
it is not exactly what a man is, but what he does, that I
Then you used the words " degraded connexion "
advisedly ? — Yes.
Now, mark the entire of the sentence : — " Not one
member of my family will hold any intercourse with me
for forming such a degraded connexion, as it is well
known in Pembrokeshire that I have been living with
you for some months." Did you write that ?
Witness (very indignantly). — I shall make you prove
that ; you can say nothing against my character.
I said nothing against it myself : I was simply quoting
what you said against your own character yourself. I
ask you again, did you write that letter acknowledging
that you had been living with Lord Kanelagh for
months ? — Yes, I accepted Madame Rachel's dictation.
Trusting to that wicked woman — that foul, wicked
woman in the dock — I wrote whatever she dictated.
Then what you tell the Court and jury is this, — that
you, the widow of an Indian officer, the woman of virtue
and integrity, deliberately wrote that it was well known
in Pembrokeshire that " you had been living with Lord
Ranelagh for months ? — I have no recollection of
writing that letter.
The next sentence of it read as follows : — " When I
receive a letter from my daughter it is full of insults."
Is that true ? Have you received letters from your
daughter upbraiding you with anything ? Never ; her
letters were always written with the kindest affection.
The letter goes on, " You cannot be, and are not,
surprised at this, considering the life we have been
leading." — I had not been leading any immoral life ; I
had been living in George-street, Hanover-square, for
Yes ; but what I have read is in your letter. You
go on to say, " Am I to believe that the woman you
travelled with, and whom you introduced to me as your
sister, is your mistress ? " Is that true ? Did Lord
Kanelagh introduce you to a woman as his sister ? — No ;
but Madame Rachel introduced to me a woman who
she said was his lordship's sister.
In the next letter, dated the 18th of October, 1867,
you write, — •' My own dear William, — It was very kind
of you to take care of my comb and frisette ; it is my
own hair. The man who keeps the hairdresser's shop
at the corner of High-street, Cheltenham, made it for
me — the man who used to shave jou when you were
there." When you mean to say that you wrote that
letter, and wrote it to Lord Ranelagh ? — I do.
Then you wrote to his lordship that he had been
shaved by a hairdresser at Cheltenham ? (A laugh.) —
Yes, I was told that he wore a wig.
But what had his wig to do with his shaving ?
(Laughter.) Were you at Cheltenham with him ? — No ;
but I was told he was there when I was there.
The letter goes on to say/' Madame Rachel told me
she had all my momey, and Mr. Haynes agreed with
her that what had been done in the matter of parting
with my money was sanctioned by me. I had a terrible
quarrel with Rachel, but it is now made up." Is that
true that Rachel told you she had all your money ? —
Yes ; she often told me she had all my money.
The next letter reads as follows : — " My own dear
William, — Your letters are safe in my possession, and I
am rejoiced to read them over very often. I have no one to
care for now but you, and I love you all the more for it.
Therefore you must not doubt me. I have given you
all a woman holds dear." What did you mean by that
last expression ? — That I had given him all my money.
In your next letter you ask Lord Ranelagh how he
can call himself an " old donkey " (a laugh), and then
you go on to tell him that Mr. Cridland is about to bring an
action at your suit against Madame Rachel for the
recovery of your money, and that it would have been
well if Lord Ranelagh had not sent a box of your letters
to Rachel's the latter having a great motive in keeping
them. Now, I ask you on your solemn oath, was that
letter written at the prisoner's dictation ? — Yes ; I have
already told you that I wrote all my letters at her
You next go on to say that you were sure Rachel
would send your box of letters to Mr. Cridland, and
that the latter had told you that he had sent your case
against her to the Court of Queen's Bench. Did you
bring an action against her in the Queen's Bench ?—
I suppose you know that had that case been gone on
with she could have given evidence ? — Yes.
I believe this criminal prosecution is not carried on
at your instance ? — It is not.
In point of fact you have no wish to prosecute her ? —
I have not. I would rather not prosecute her criminally
because I have no desire that the case should be
made so public as it has been. I would rather proceed
against her in a civil court ; but what could I do, when
I could get neither my money nor my clothes ?
In the next letter you say that " Rachel growled like
a bear " and that " she was like a witch, because there
was nothing she did not know." Did you write that ? —
I do not think I could have made use of such an
expression as that " she growled like a bear " but I do
recollect writing that " she was like a witch."
Your next letter reads in this way " My own dear
William, — Any sacrifice you have made for me I shall
never forget. I am glad for your sake as well as for my
own that you are economizing. I cannot thank you,
but I will kiss you, or you shall kiss me, which I shall
like better. (Laughter.) I should, indeed, have been
sorry if you had gone to Ireland, that wretched place.
What good could you do, my darling, by mixing your-
self up with the Fenians, or having anything to do with
them ?" Now, did you think when you wrote that letter
that Lord Ranelagh had been at any time connected
with the Fenians ? — I do not recollect that letter.
Did you ever see a man named O'Keefe ? — Yes ; by
Mr. Cridland's wishes he called on me at Paris.
Did O'Keefe take a considerable part in the Fenian
meetings which were going on ? — He did.
He had a nephew or a son, I believe ? — I cannot tell;
I know very little about him.
In one of your letters you speak of him as a man who
had been once with the Fenians, who was to have nothing
to do with Stephens in the future, and who had in the
past squandered all his money in a hopeless cause.
Now, does that description recall to your memory any of
the relations of O'Keefe — in particular, a half military,
half sporting-looking man ? — I know nothing whatever
about such a man or such a letter.
Had you and O'Keefe any business transactions
together ? — No, except that he thought it the wisest
plan to prosecute the prisoner, in order to enable me to
get back my money.
You probably thought Madame Kachel would settle
with you if you instituted a prosecution against her ? —
Yes, I thought she would not have had the audacity to
keep my money and clothes and that she would not
stand a trial.
Did he tell you rather than have a criminal charge,
advanced against her in this court she would pay you ? —
I have already told you that I never thought myself she
would keep my money and clothes after the prosecution
had been commenced.
Did you employ O'Keefe to go to Kachel's to try to
settle this matter ? — No.
Do you know that he went there ? — I know nothing
at all about it ; he never told me he was going.
Don't you know he went to Rachel's house and
offered for a sum of money to settle the matter ? — No ;
nor do I believe he did.
Here is a letter written at the end of 1867, which
commences with " My own dear William, — If you look
at the enclosed bill you will see that I am not the extra-
vagant person your sister says I am. I bought Florence
my daughter, a pair of boots and three pairs of stockings
but not before she wanted them." Did Rachel tell you
to write and tell Lord Ranelagh that you bought a pair
of boots and three pairs of stockings for your daughter?
(A laugh.) — She did.
The letter goes on " Your sister ought to see that
your stockings are mended. (Laughter.) I cannot
see why she cannot mend them herself, and put some
buttons on your shirts. (Laughter.) It would be
better than gossipping with the woman next room to
her. Send all your clothes that want mending to me."
(Laughter.) Now, did Rachel really tell you to write
to a nobleman like Lord Ranelagh, with instructions
that he should get his stockings darned, and buttons
put upon his shirts, and that he should send his
tattered garments up to you to be mended ? (Renewed
laughter.) — She did ; she meant that all his clothes that
wanted mending were to be sent to me.
So says the letter : but let us proceed : — "As you
want boots we shall go to a maker in Oxford-street and
get a pair. (More laughter.) I am surprised to find
that your flannels should be worn out (great laughter),
though you have not had them more than six weeks.
It is the result of bad washing. There is a man living
in a court oft' Regent-street who mends coats cheaply,
and I think you might give him a job." (Renewed
laughter.) Now I ask you on your solemn oath, did
you, when you wrote that letter to this shirtless, button-
less, stockless, bootless, flannelless, hatless individual
(roars of laughter), think that yon were writing to
Lord Ranelagh ? — At that time I found out that he
was not a rich man.
I ask the question again. On your oath, did you
then think you were then writing to Lord Ranelagh ? —
You sign that letter, " Your affectionate and loving
Mary." In your next letter you ask him whether he
has seen the Daily Telegraph, and then you express the
shame with which you read an account of " poor
Tommy" (meaning his lordship) having been fined 20s.
for smoking a cigar in a railway carriage. You also
express a wish that he may never do worse, and then
you inform him that Mr. Cridland, your attorney, is
coming down upon him for the recovery of your money.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE here complained that new
letters had been introduced that day which were not
produced upon former occasion.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said that all the letters now in-
troduced were in court upon the last occasion.
Mr. Serjeant BALLAUTINE promised to argue at a future
stage of the trial that several of these letters were not
Cross-examination continued by Mr. SEYMOUR. — In
a letter written to Lord Ranelagh in January, 1868, you
say " Mr. Cridland's clerk has served Each el with a writ
for 4, 0001. I am very sorry for you, as Rachel is sure to
expose the whole affair. I think of my feelings. They
told me it was a case of transportation, and I am quite
sure Rachel would assist to transport you." Now, did
you really think when you wrote that letter that Rachel
Avould assist in transporting his lordship ? I have no
recollection of that letter. The letter produced, dated,
" Great Western Hotel, May, 1 866," I think is in my
handwriting. (The letter alluded to the return of some
receipts, and it stated that Mr. Lovejoy had summoned
her that morning.) Lovejoy is the keeper of a
coffee-house in London-street. He never retained any
of my property. Forsomeshort time past I lodged in Fran-
cis-street, but I discovered that it was not such a place
as a lady ought to be in, and in the letter I asked
Madame Rachel, not to mention my address to any one
The letter, dated November 26, 1866 is in my hand
writing. (This letter expressed confidence in Madame
Rachel, and stated that if she, Mrs. Borradaile, thought
proper to place her affections on a man who had not a
shilling she should so, and that if he wanted a hair
of her head he should have it. (Laughter.) The books
produced were given by me to Madame Rachel (The
prisoner here gave an hysterical sigh, and was allowed
to leave the court for a few minutes.) I wrote to Mr.
Cridland and Mr. Haynes, I think, to obtain from
Madame my box of letters. This letter was written
at the prisoner's dictation. The letter dated February
1868, was written by me. It asked Madame Rachel to
give her back the box of letters, and put an end ot her
misery, and it added, "You shall not be made a victim to
serve other people, as you have kept my confidence,
and I shall repay you as a lady ought to do.") I cannot
tell what were the intentions of Madame Rachel—
whether she would give the letters to me or to Mr.
Cridland. She had said that she would do either. She
had my authority to give them to Mr. Cridland. I
wished her very much to do so. I and Madame
Rachel did not go into the question of accounts in the
presence of Mr. Haynes. We went to his office to get
him to arrange things amicably — to get back my clothes
and such like, without having to go to law about them
There were numbers of letters read on the last occasion
about which I recollect nothing whatever. The
enclosure to the letter of March 26, 1867, is not my
writing. (The written enclosure stated that the
witness had entered into an engagement to pay
Madame Rachel £150. per annum out of her pension
on consideration of her giving up a mortgage deed for
£600. Which witness had given her.) My pension is
£350 a year. I never remember writing the letter to
dear Tommy telling him that he must remember he was
not the only man who loved me, that he might think a
certain Duchess very charming, but that he ought to
have found her out by that time, and reminding him
that he had seen me in a bath in Davies-street.
At this point the trial was again adjourned till this
morning, and is likely to last the whole of the day, if
The trial of Sarah Rachel Levison, better known as
Madame Rachel, begun on Monday, on the charge of
obtaining from Mary Tucker Borradaile, by certain false
and fraudulent pretences, the sum of £1,400 with intent
to defraud, was resumed this morning on the opening of
The public interest in the case has rather increased
than otherwise, and at times during tne day the atmos-
phere of the court, from overcrowding, was almost in-
supportable. Many of the audience, as before, were
ladies. Lord Ranelagh was again present, and occupied
a seat at a side bench,
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine (with whom were Mr.
Montagu Williams and Mr. Straight) conducted the
prosecution ; Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant
Parry, Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, and Mr. Butler Rigby the
Mrs. Borradaile, the prosecutrix, whose cross-
examination had lasted throughout the whole of Tues-
day, was recalled and re-examined by her leading
counsel, Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. She said, replying
to the questions put by him, — When I arrived in
London I went to the Great Western terminus. I had
come from Cheltenham. I arrived in the evening.
Occasionally before that I had gone to the Great
Western Hotel, but on that evening it was rather full.
I could only get a room on the first floor, and that I
thought was too expensive for me. I was told I could
get lodgings at Lovejoy's, and I went there, remaining
about six days. So far as I know, it was a respectable
house. I had been recommended to go there. From
Lovejoy's I went to a coffee house, owing to a dispute I
had with him. I asked him to change a £10 note for
me, and he did so. It was late in the evening, and he
sent me up the change. He afterwards said he thought,
on counting his money, that he had sent me up £12,
instead of £10. I replied I was sure I had not re-
ceived more than £10. I left in consequence. A
druggist in the neighbourhood, to whom I applied, sent
for a cab for me, and I asked a railway porter to take
me to a respectable lodging. He took me to 4, Francis-
street, where I remained four days. There I only occu-
pied only one room, paying 2s. a day for it, I think. No
one visited me at either Lovejoy's or the house in
Francis-street, and as to Francis-street, there was cer-
tainly nothing to induce me to believe that I was living
in an improper house. I think I saw Madame Rachel
the day after I arrived in London. I went to see her.
It was about that time that the letter to Mr. Edwardes
was written ; but I never recollect directing a letter in
that way to Mr. Edwardes. The writing looks certainly
like mine, and I believe it to be so. It is dated from
4, Francis-street. I never wrote a letter from Francis-
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Have you any idea at all
how Madame Rachel has been enabled to produce these
letters — I mean those directed to " William," which you
supposed you were writing to Lord Ranelagh ?
Witness. — Not at all, except that she kept them. I
had supposed they were always delivered to the person
for whom they were intended, and until the last trial I
had not the least idea that those letters were in her
possession. She told me about letters, but I had na
idea they were the letters that I supposed had been
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — You have said all the
letters you wrote in connexion with this matter were
written at the dictation of Madame Rachel.
Witness. — Yes, every one, except two, which she
thought were not well written, and she told me to take
them to George-street and copy them, which I did.
Witness continued, — In Madame Rachel's house there
is a small parlour communicating with the shop. I have
seen her daughter Rachel there, and her granddaughter,
Miss Leonti. I think the daughter told me she was
upwards of 50 years of age, and Madame Rachel told
me she herself was 30. I cannot tell you whether that
was a young lady who said she was past 50 " they are
so made up." (A laugh.) Miss Leonti, her grand-
daughter, is a young woman. The granddaughter was
always there. I have seen Leonti write, and I think I
might know her writing if I saw it again.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — You have said Madame
Rachel was in the habit of dictating to you what you
Witness. — Yes.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Explain now what occur-
red, and whether anybody was present.
Witness. — It was always in the evening, when the
shop was shut up. There was a servant-man there
named Hendry, who has seen me write ; and Leonti
has seen me write. Madame Rachel never allowed any
one to be present when I was writing, but they have
gone in and out when I was so engaged. I have also
written some letters at 50, Maddox-street, which I think
she told me was her daughter's house. Leonti has seen
me write letters there, I used to be writing very late
at Madame Rachel's — sometimes as late as 11 o'clock.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — While you were lodging
at the house of Mr. Smith did anybody visit you there?
Witness. — No one, except Mr. Cope, my brother-in-
law and one or two solicitors.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Did you see any one re-
presented as "William?" — No; I know no one so called.
Witness continued. — Leonti was generally at her
mother's house, but she was always at her grandmother's
when her grandmother was out of town. She was there
often also when her grandmother was in town. The
servant-man, Hendry, was also there. On one occasion
I gave him a letter I had copied to be handed to
Madame Rachel. It was the letter directed to Captain
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Had you any communi-
cation with any man at Madame Rachel's, except the
slight communication with Lord Ranelagh ?
Witness. — No, not one ; never.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — During the whole time
you were in the habit of going to Madame Rachel's,
have you ever walked about the streets or gone to
coffeehouses with any man whatever ?
Witness. — No ; not with any man at any coffeehouse,
nor have I had communication with any man, except
such as I have told you, and that I say on my solemn
oath. Witness continued, — I have looked at a great
many letters which have been read, and they are mostly
in my handwriting. Of some I have a recollection of
their contents, of others I have not. When I wrote the
letters I trusted to her (Rachel). That is how I wrote
them. Madame Rachel used to give me whisky. That
was before I wrote the letters. I had never taken
whisky before, and have never since. I think she
generally gave me whisky before I wrote the letters.
Not that I think that there was anything in the whisky.
It was proper whisky, because I saw her take it herself.
I have mentioned the whisky to several people before
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Never in your evidence.
Witness. — I mentioned the matter to Mr. Lewis, my
solicitor, and also to Mr. Montagu Williams, I think.
I had not been in the habit of taking spirits before. I
used to take brandy and soda-water by a doctor's advice,
but very little of that.
By the COMMISSIONER. — I don't know whether this
was whisky or not. I was told by her it was whisky,
and I have heard her send for whisky. I took it in
little liqueur glasses. Madame Rachel said it had done
her a great deal of good. She dictated, and I wrote.
Witness continued her re-examination. — I have seen
a young man named Horace writing there in 1866. She
had a boy named Williams, who also used to write. He
copied the letter that was sent to Mr. Cope, my brother-
in-law, in North Wales. From Francis-street I went
to George-street, and remained there a little more than
three months. Thence I went to 36, Davies-street for
a fortnight, and then to 7, George -street, where I re-
mained till the prosecution was begun — nearly two
years. I had been living very economically. I paid a
guinea a week for my lodgings, and I am sure my clothes
in the year did not cost me £20. At first I took my
dinner at the Scotch Stores, but on Mr. Smith, my land-
lord, suggesting that it was not a very fit place for a
lady to dine at, I took dinner at his house. Never at
the Scotch Stores, nor at any of the lodging houses at
which I stayed during the whole time I was in London,
had I any companion. I have said I took about 100
baths. It may not have been so many. I paid for them.
All that I had for my £1,000 was some soap, some
powders, and something to put in the bath.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Was that " dew from
Arabia?" (A laugh.)
Witness. — I believe it was some magnetic water.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Did it produce any effect?
Witness. — Madame Rachel may be clever with res-
pect to theskin,but sheneverdid much for me. (Laughter.)
That was all I had for £1,000. I afterwards parted with
other sums of money. The history of the photograph
mentioned in one of my letters is this : — It was the
photograph of Lord Ranelagh, which I purchased at a
shop in Regent-street, and which I hung up in my bed-
room in George-street, Hanover-square. It had been
hanging there about a fortnight. I told Rachel I had
Then how did it happen that, if you had it hanging
in your bedroom, you took it into your head to remove
it to a warmer position — namely, into bed to you ?
(Great laughter, in which the witness joined heartily.)
There is no harm, you know, in having a photograph in
bed with you (more laughter) ; but what I want to
learn from you is, did anybody suggest to you that you
should take it into bed ?— No ; it was my own sugges-
When you mentioned to Rachel the fact of its re-
moval from the wall to the bed, did she say anything ? —
Yes ; she said, " When next you are writing to Lord
Ranelagh don't forget to tell him that you took it to
bed to you." (Laughter.) When I noticed the bad
spelling in the first letter of Lord Ranelagh which con-
tained it, I said to Rachel that I would refuse to take
any more letters from him which were badly spelt.
Rachel then explained that the letter would not have
been mis-spelt if Lord Ranelagh had not hurt his arm
and been obliged to employ an ignorant amanuensis.
In love letters ladies usually only sign their Christian
names, but I signed mine " Mary Tucker Borradaile " in
full, because I was so foolish.
Now, here is a letter in which you say that after you
had one of your baths at Rachel's you went to a coffee-
house opposite to ask whether a gentleman had been
inquiring for you. How was that ? — Rachel told me
to go to the coffeehouse and make the inquiry. I went
and made it, but did not go inside the door, as I saw
several gentlemen there.
You have been asked whether Kachel spoke to you
about spending money upon a paramour. Did you
spend any money upon a paramour ? — Never.
Did you ever post your letters to Lord Ranelagh ? —
No ; I addressed them to him either at Birdcage-walk,
New Bond-street, or the Carlton Club, and handed
them to Rachel, who was to have them delivered to
him. She said I was to be married to him by proxy,
that the courtship was to be carried on by letter, and
that she had lately married two couples by proxy. I
certainly wrote in one of my letters that not one of my
family would hold any communication with me, but that
is not true, and I cannot account for writing such a
letter. Mr. and Mrs. Cope and others of my relations
are in court, and they will all tell you that not one of
them ever reproached me or refused to hold any com-
munication with me for having formed a degrading
connexion with Lord Ranelagh. I would not have con-
sidered a connexion with his lordship degrading. I
never formed a degrading connexion with any one. I
again repeat that I cannot account for writing such
a letter. I never recollect writing such a sentence
in it as this : — " It is well known in Pembrokeshire that
I have been living with you for some months." It is
not true that I had been living with him or with any
one for months. My daughter was always with me in
Wales, and must have seen me living with Lord Rane-
lagh if there had been any truth in the allegation. I
repeat that there is not the shadow of a foundation for
saying that I had been living with any one in Pem-
brokeshire or anywhere else.
Can you in any way account for writing such a letter?
—I cannot ; I must have been a lunatic to write it.
And you are not a lunatic, I believe ? (A laugh.) — I
think not. I have been a virtuous, prudent woman all
my life, and never lived with any man ; and I can only
account for these letters by supposing that they were
written by somebody else. I have already stated that
I met a Mr. O'Keefe in Paris for the first time. There
is no truth in the insinuation that I have lived with a
son of his.
The COMMISSIONER. — I think the insinuation was that
she had been living with Mr. O'Keefe himself, not with
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Yes, that was the insinuation.
Examination continued. — I never knew Stephens, the
Head Centre of the Fenians, although I appear to have
made some mention of him in one of my letters. I
recollect Rachel speaking to me about the Fenians, and
telling me that Stephens was Lord Ranelagh's servant.
(Laughter.) I do not remember writing to his lordship
and saying that I was glad he had not mixed himself up
with the Fenians. The letter in which that is said is
like many of the others. I cannot explain them. There
is a letter purporting to have been written by me to
Lord Ranelagli, in which I say, — " I feel better now
since you are leaving Charing-cross to morrow ; will
that to-morrow ever come ?" I recollect writing the
words " Charing-cross ;" but I can only judge of the
letter being mine by recognising those words. I was
handed a letter by Rachel which contained initials at
the top. She told me those were the initials of Lord
The COMMISSIONER (looking at the letter). — But they
are not his initials, and the word " Charing " in the
other letter is not correctly spelt.
Examination continued. — When I was told that my
pension would be stopped if I married I was induced to
hand the £1,600 bond to Rachel, giving her a mortgage
on it. I think I may have written ten letters to "Tom"
as Lord Ranelagh. I may have written others. Madame
Rachel asked me for the letters written to me by my
late husband. I gave them to her and never got them
back since. The reason I wrote to " dear Tom ;' was
because Madame Rachel said I was now oft' with
William, and that I must commence with " dear Tom."
(Laughter.) I wrote almost all the letters to Lord
Ranelagh at Rachel's house. Some of them I wrote at
Maddox-street in Leonti's presence. Leonti was in
court yesterday. There is this passage in the letter
now produced : — " The Marquis of Hastings lost all in
one day more than my poor William ever had to lose."
I did not know anything about the Marquis of Hastings
or his fortune. In the letter it is said : — " If you (Lord
Ranelagh) have not taken the cough mixture, take it."
(A laugh.) I heard at that time he had a cold. I never
borrowed any money from Rachel. There was an ac-
count produced on the last occasion, the authenticity of
the handwriting of which I then denied., I still deny
its authenticity. It is there said that I received £500
from her. That is an absolute fabrication. These1
receipts for £50, £200, £10, £18, £85, £80, £70 are all
fabrications. I never received any portion of those
moneys, and if the receipts are in my handwriting, I
cannot account for them. There are other receipts pur-
porting to be given by me to Rachel for further sums,
and for £50 alleged to have been paid by her for under-
clothing for me. The entire of these amounts comes to
£2,200, and I solemly swear, upon my oath, that not
one single sixpence of that sum did I ever receive.
By Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — on the last occasion there
might have been a letter put in written by me to Mr.
Haynes acknowledging the receipt of £700 from Rachel,
but a farthing of that I never received.
Did you not say on the last occasion that this long
account of money owing and money received by you
was in your handwriting ? — I said then what I say now,
that I have no recollection of writing it, but that part of
it appears to be in my writing and part not.
I ask you again on your oath — ? — don't be so con-
stantly reminding me of my oath.
The Serjeant has asked you upon your oath a dozen
times — Well, I don't like it ; I know I am on my oath.
The COMMISSIONER requested the prosecutrix to con-
tinue to give her evidence without telling the counsel
how he was to shape his questions.
To Mr. DIGDY SEYMOUR,— The figures " £700," and
" £1,600," in the account are not like my handwriting.
Others of the figures are like it. The " £85," is some-
thing like it. The "5" of the "£500," looks like it ;
the others are not at all like it. The " £85," is something
like it. Madame Rachel said something to me about
her keeping an account with me. I asked her what she
meant by that. That was in 1866. There is mention
made in the account about some underclothing having
been purchased for me Rachel told me that £50. worth
of underclothing had been purchased for me from a
shopkeeper named Himus. She further told me that
she had purchased £30 more of underclothing for me
from Himus. If Rachel has been compelled to pay that
£30 since she has been in Newgate I can only say that
I knew nothing about it, I did not receive any under-
clothing from her, but I admit that she was to purchase
all the clothing necessary for my marriage. I may have
said that I wrote one of the letters to Lord Ranelagh
which was produced at the Marlborough Police-court,
because I had nothing better to do.
To Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I swear positively I
never received any underclothing whatever from Madame
Rachel. I never received the tenth part of a shilling
from her. (A laugh.)
To the COMMISSIONER. — I have said that I often saw
Leonti write, and that her handwriting is not unlike
The prisoner here said she had sent for her daughter,
and that she could be examined as a witness in disproof
of the prosecutrix if it were wished.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR requested of the prisoner to leave
the conduct of her case in his hands.
Prosecutrix to Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — I may have said
on the last occasion that one of the receipts was in my
handwriting, that I had never received a shilling from
Rachel, and that she had dictated the receipt, and had
immense influence over me. The receipt I then ac-
knowledged, because I thought at that time, and still
think, the handwriting to be like mine, was for £500.
I think I wrote the letter of the 21st of September,
1866, now produced, authorising Kachel to dispose of
all the property of mine she had in her possession, but
if she did dispose of it I never had a farthing of the
proceeds, neither had I any portion of the £500 men-
tioned in the receipt.
Mr. Joseph Haynes, called and examined by Mr.
Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I am a solicitor in St. James-
street, and the mortgagee of the house in which Madame
Kachel lived, at the corner of New Bond-street. I had
never acted as her solicitor. In the June of 1866 she
brought Mrs. Borradaile to my chambers, and on the
llth or 13th of June I acted as the latter's solicitor.
Rachel said that Mrs. Borradaile owed her some money
— I do not recollect how much — and there was an ap-
pointment made to go into the City to sell out her stock.
Rachel then only owed me one quarter's rent — £62 10s.
That was due from the preceding March. A carriage
was sent for me. I went in it to Rachel's, where I
found Mrs. Borradaile, and the result was a visit to the
City, when there was a sale of Mrs. Borradaile's stock.
That sale produced a sum of £963. 2s. lid. A check
for that amount was given to me by the stock-broker,
and I paid that into my banker's. That was on June 6,
1866. On the same day that I received the check from
the stockbroker I gave Rachel a check for £550. I
have made a mistake in saying that Rachel only owed
me a quarter's rent in March. The fact is, she then
owed me half a year's rent, and I believe it was in con-
sequence of my applying for the payment of that rent
that she brought down Mrs. Borradaile to my office to
sell the stock. I recouped myself for the half-year's
rent out of the balance of the £960, after giving Rachel
the check for the £550. The rent for the half-year came
to £125, but then on the 21st of the same month (June)
there was another quarter's rent due, so I charged
Madame Rachel for that quarter also — £62. 10s.
In point of fact, then, in the matter of her rent, you
appear to have taken tolerably good care of yourself (a
laugh), for altogether you kept for nine months' rent
£187. 10s. What was to become of the balance ?— The
balance was to be retained in an account between me
You were, I suppose, to retain that balance — some
£70 or so — as a satisfaction for her future rent ? — I
So that out of the money Rachel was to have you
kept about £250 for yourself for the rent ?— Yes.
The COMMISSIONER. — Do you mean to say that Mrs.
Borradaile did not get a farthing out of the proceeds of
the sale of her stock ? — I do.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — It appears that we have
made some mistake about these figures. You say the
stock sold for £960. Out of that you gave Rachel a
check for £550, and you kept £250 for the rent. That
leaves a balance of about £160. What became of that ?
• — I gave an acknowledgment for that, and after a sub-
sequent settlement Rachel told me that she had paid
that £160. to Mrs. Borradaile.
Well, now, that was the first transaction. The second
I believe, was on the 14th of June, when Mrs. Borradaile
called on you again. Was she alone ? — She was.
What did she want ? — She was then being sued for
debts, and in order to release her from them I sold the
reversion of her estate through the Reversionary Society.
When did you do that ?— In August, 1866.
What did you raise for her on the reversion deed ? — I
raised a sum of £1,340.
What did you do after that ? — I sent in an account on
the 15th of September to Mrs. Borradaile, in which I
included a sum of £1,400 alleged to have been paid to
Rachel on the 13th of August, 1866.
How could that be ? How could you pay £1,400 to
Rachel out of the reversion of £1,340 ? — Because Mrs.
Borradaile called at my office and paid over to my clerk
£60 the difference between the £1,340 and the £1,400
and that £1,400 was paid over to Rachel as I understood,
in discharge of the debt which Mrs. Borradaile owed
Then was that £1,400 paid to Kachel at that time ?— -
How was it paid ? — In anticipation of receiving the
money from the sale of the reversion I advanced Rachel
on the 24th of August, £40.
What did she say upon that occasion ? — That as Mrs.
Borradaile owed herjmoney, and that as I was raising
money for her upon the sale of the reversion, she asked
me if I would let her have £40.
Go on. What more did you give her ? — On the 30th
of August I gave her a cheque for £20, and on the 31st
of August I gave her another check for £200.
May I ask what became of the £1,340, the proceeds
of the sale ? — Oh, that had been paid into my banker's
in the first instance.
Go on with your payments to Kachel. — I had an order
to pay Eachel the whole of the £1,400 and my next
payment to her was on the 1st of September, when I
fave her a check for £220. On the 15th of September
gave her a check for £150, and on the same day
another check for £120.
Now, was Mrs. Borradaile arrested about that time? —
Afterwards she was.
Yes, but was she not arrested in July for a sum of
£50?— She was. On the 27th of September I gave
Eachel another cheque for £100, and on the 29th of
September, quarter-day, I put down £62 10s. for the
What, more rent ? (Laughter.) I thought you had
got the entire year's rent before. What did you pay in
cash to Eachel ? — That I cannot exactly say, for I had
an account of the sums paid to her in cash, which, as
she was unable to read or write, she took away to get
receipted and she never brought it back. On December
8th I paid her £5, and on January 23rd I gave her a
check for £272. There was then a balance of £147 in
my hands, and that was subsequently arranged between
her and me.
What do you mean ? Do you mean to say that you
paid that money to her ? — I do.
At all events, whatever you paid her, Mrs. Borradaile
never received a farthing ? — Not a farthing.
The COMMISSIONER. — Did you never ask if she had
any claim of any kind ? — I did, but I always understood
that Rachel had been paying away money for her, and
that the checks I was giving to Kachel went to reim-
burse her for the money so paid.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Did you ever of your own
knowledge, find out that Kachel had advanced a single
farthing for Mrs. Borradaile ? — I did not of my own
knowledge find that out ; but Eachel has herself told
me that she had advanced money on Mrs. Borradaile's
behalf, and that she had advanced it to Captain William
Edwardes, Mrs. Borradaile's cousin.
Did she say how much she had advanced ? — She did
Did you ask her ? — I did, and I told her she would
be brought to an account some day for these advances.
What did she say to that ? — She said that she had re-
ceipts for all the money she had advanced to Captain Ed-
wardes and others on Mrs. Borradaile's behalf. In fact,
I understood from the conversation that Eachel was a
sort of private banker for Mrs. Borradaile.
Her private banker? How could you think that? What!
to make a private banker of a woman who couldn't pay
her quarter's rent ! Could you for a moment believe that
a lady like Mrs. Borradaile would make a perfumer her
banker ? (A laugh.) But go on. — Well, as I have said,
the £1,340 had been received in respect of a portion of
the Streatham Estate. There remained, however,
another portion of that estate belonging to Mrs. Borra-
daile upon which a further sum could be raised, and
accordingly that portion was sold for £1,380. That sum
was paid to me by the sellers in two checks, which I
passed into my banker's. A cash account was rendered
which showed that there was a balance of £544 10s. 4d.
owing to me.
Explain how that balance was brought out ? It was
brought out in this way : — I had paid various sums on
account of Mrs. Borradaile. The first I paid was a
debt and costs against her of £153, she having given an
acceptance in June, 1866, upon which she was sued.
I then paid £11 6s. 4d., being the amount of costs in an
action brought against her by a Mr. Hamilton ; and
bear in mind that none of these were my costs, but that
they were those of the solicitors to the execution of the
suits. Then I paid £100 on her account to a Mr. Pike.
She had given Mr. Pike an acceptance for £160
for some diamonds, and I got him to cancel the trans-
action with her for £100 he keeping his diamonds, with
which, indeed, he had never parted.
I, take it, then that Mr. Pike was all right ; he had
his diamonds — the wedding diamonds I suppose — and
he received £100 for nothing. (Laughter.) But pro-
ceed with the story, what next did you pay ? I next
paid £100 on her behalf to a Mr. Moore, a laceman,
being the balance of an account owing by her for lace.
Do you recollect what was the original amount owing
for that lace ? — Yes, the original amount was £384 ; but
payments had been made, and the balance at last was
reduced to £100.
That accounts for £554 out of the £1,480 ; what
became of the rest ? — I paid over £700 of the rest by
Mrs. Borradaile's orders, or at her request to Madame
Rachel. Part of the £700 was paid to Rachel on the
24th of April, in two checks — one for £500 and the
other for £60. On the 25th of March I debited her for
another quarter's rent.
What ! rent again ! (Great laughter.) Why, that
is the fifth quarter's rent, as I calculate it, that you
charged her for. I suppose that came to £6:3 10s., as
before ? — It did, and finally there remained a balance of
£27, which has since been laid out by me on Eachel's
account. Almost all the checks I gave her were made
payable to order. The largest check was for £270,
and that was neither crossed nor was it made payable
to order or to bearer.
The COMMISSIONER. — Well, but I suppose it has some
sort of a banker's mark upon it.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I cannot discern any
mark upon is, but perhaps as your Lordship is more
conversant with checks than I am (laughter), you can
see something on it which I cannot.
The COMMISSIONER, having held it up between him
and the windows, said the banker's mark upon it was
Cross-examined by Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — The first
time I saw Mrs. Borradaile was on the fifth of June,
1866. She then told me she owed Kachel about £800.,
and that she wished me to sell out her stock to pay it.
She said there was money due by her upon an ac-
ceptance to Hamilton, which she would require to be
given up when the £800 was paid. Hamilton was
afterwards settled with. There was nothing said as to
how the £800 had originated. Mrs. Borradaile said she
was owing money to Rachel on I O U's and bills.
A long discussion here arose between counsel on both
sides as to whether Mr. Digby Seymour could cross-
examine the witness on points which had not been
alluded to on the direct examination. Mr. Digby Sey-
mour, of course, alleged that this was a right which he
possessed, and that, in fact, the privilege of counsel
would be at an end if a witness like Mr. Haynes pro-
duced on the part of the prosecution, were to be allowed
to tell all he knew against the prisoner, and if he were
to be prevented from answering any question which
would tend to exculpate the prisoner.
Mr. Serjeant PARRY followed on the same side, con-
tending that whatever had occurred between Mrs.
Borradaile and the witness in conversation ought fairly
to be elicited on cross-examination.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE argued that the cross«-
examination must be confined to the matters which had
come out in the direct examination.
The COMMISSIONER agreed with Mr. Serjeant Ballan-
tine ; but said he should consult the learned Judge in
the Old Court, Mr. Justice Keating, who had had more
experience in these matters than himself, upon the sub-
Accordingly, the COMMISSIONER, having retired for
this purpose, said, on his return, that the learned Judge
was of opinion that the view taken by Mr. Digby Sey-
mour was substantially correct, and that he had a light
to cross-examine the witness on all the matters
brought out on the direct examination by the prose-
cution. The cross-examination, however, must pro-
ceed upon the answers the witness gave, not upon
any voluntary statement he might choose to make,
because a voluntary statement might lead to the in-
troduction of new matter. In the present case Mrs.
Borradaile must be looked upon as a witness, not as
the prosecutrix, the Queen being the prosecutrix, and
any conversations between Mrs. Borradaile and Mr.
Haynes (if they were not privileged in right of his being
an attorney) he might be cross-examined upon. He
believed these were legal points which Mr. Serjeant
Ballantine would not dispute.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Oh! certainly not. lam
always unwilling to be as strict at a criminal trial as I
might be at Nisi Prim.
Witness, in continuation to Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. —
Afterwards Mrs. Borradaile told me orally and in
writing what had become of the bills and I O U's she
he had given to Kachel. In writing she said that had
found out that Rachel had paid 1,400/. on her account,
for which she (Rachel) held bills and receipts. I have a
long list of letters here, written by Mrs. Borradaile, in
which she makes some general allusions to the accounts
between herself and Rachel ' In one of these she
informed me that she had settled with Rachel, and that
she would trouble me to sell out a portion of her
estate to complete that settlement. I produce an
authority also from her with reference to other parts I
took in the management of her transactions. I have a
letter by Madame Rachel to myself respecting the
delivery of the box of letters (letter read) ; and also
one from Mrs. Borradaile. I had several; interviews
with Mr. Cridland between December, 1866, and April
of the present year. I first saw Mrs. Borradaile in
June. Upon that occasion she said nothing with refer-
ence to her proposed marriage She was alone when
she gave me instructions with reference to the bills and
the money, and upon her directions I acted. She ap-
peared to understand perfectly what she was doing.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did Mrs. Borradaile at any
time say anything to you about Captain William
Witness. — She did ; it was in answer to my remark
why she was spending so large a sum in diamonds.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did Mrs. Borradaile tell you
that she was going to marry her cousin, Captain
William Edwardes ?
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE objected to this and other
questions, and a legal argument ensued.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did she say so with reference
to the matter you have mentioned ?
Witness. — I was told by Mrs. Borradaile that she
was going to marry her cousin; she said this more
particularly with reference to the diamonds. I had
asked her why she was paying for such an extravagant
thing as a set of diamonds while she was being sued for
a debt of £70 or £80. She then said she was going to
marry her cousin. Madame Rachel and Mrs. Borradaile
were together at my office on other occasions. I
remember reference being made in one of the letters to
a scene that occurred there.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Can you tell us what it was
The COMMISSIONER. — Was there a scene ?
Witness. — Yes, a violent one.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Do you remember what was
Witness. — Madame Kachel was remonstrating with
Mrs. Borradaile as to her general extravagance, when
she became angry. I can give you the reason.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I would rather you did
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUK. — Can you recollect what was
Witness. — The word " paramour" was used, and I was
astonished to hear it. Madame Eachel said, "You
know you have been spending your money recklessly
upon your paramour."
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did Mrs. Borradaile make
Witness. — She did not.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Had you previously acted as
the solicitor for Madame Eachel ?
Witness. — No ; I had not received a shilling at that
time on account.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Have you a cash account ?
Witness. — It is on a sheet of paper which Madame
Rachel has. I have no other. On that paper I entered
the moneys paid from time to time. I have no book or
any other record of them. I might be able to make
up an account from my banker's book, perhaps. I lent
the paper to Madame Rachel, and unfortunately she
has it. I paid about £50 or £60 in cash to Madame
Rachel ; the rest in checks. I have no other acknow-
ledgment for the payments except what appears on the
sheet of paper in question. When she received the
money she used to put her mark to it. I was not
satisfied with that, and gave her the paper to get her
signature attached. I expected she would have got her
daughter to sign it.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Then if she chose she could
have burnt the paper or destroyed it. Had she done
so should you have had any other entry or memorandum
to refer to ?
Witness. — I could have referred to the checks that
were paid. I can produce them to morrow.
. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR asked that they might be
produced. There was a check for £270. payable to
bearer. Was there any other acknowledgment of the
payment of that check ?
Witness.- Nothing but what appears on the sheet
of paper, Madame Eachel said that she wanted the
money to send to Paris, and I gave her the check on
the Union Bank, where I believe, she obtained the
money. The banker's books will show the notes that
He-examined by Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — In the
letter of the 21st of September allusion is made to a per-
son whom Mrs. Borradaile styled " my friend." Whom
did you understand by that ?
Witness. — T have no knowledge. I had an idea, but
it might have been an erroneous one.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Did you think it was to
her cousin, Captain William Edwardes, that she was
going to be married ?
Witness, — I did.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — And that the £1,400
had been expended in the diamonds, with a view to her
marriage with him ?
Witness. — Yes.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Will you allow me now to
call your attention to a paragraph in your bill of costs,
which is dated September 28th, 18G6 — " Attending you
when you stated that Madame Rachel had deceived you
by stating that she had paid £1,400 on your own
account to Lord Ranelagh, and advising you thereon."
(Produced.) How do you account for the name of Lord
Ranelagh being there ?
Witness. — It was mentioned either by Mrs. Borradaile
or Madame Rachel. Mrs. Borradaile had complained
of the money being borrowed for Lord Ranelagh. It
was previously to this that I thought she was going to
be married to Captain Edwardes. After then I thought
it was Lord Ranelagh. It might have been mentioned
on more occasions than one.
James Minton, a youth, an assistant to a linen draper
in Holborn Bars, examined by Mr. STRAIGHT. — I first
saw Madame Rachel at 47a, New Bond-street. It was in
a back room. Her daughter was there. I went several
times in an evening when I was in the employ of Mr.
Taylor, an auctioneer, for the purpose of writing letters
for her. I wrote several according to her dictation, and
others I copied. She sat by me and told me what I was
to write. There was a young man present whose name I
understood was Edward. I heard Madame Rachel call
him by that name. I remember having a letter given to
me to copy in January or February, 1867. Edward was
present at the time. After I had finished copying it,
Madame Rachel said the writing was like a schoolboy's.
She showed the letter to Edward, who said he could
make a better one himself, and he folded it up and put
it in his pocket. I recognise the letter (produced and
read). I went there about a dozen times altogether. I
wrote a letter to Mrs. Borradaile asking for money.
Cross-examined by Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — I was
examined at the Marlborough-street Police-court. I
know a person named O'Keefe. He did not speak to
me then. I was at the office of Mr. Cridland, the
solicitor once before the case came on. I saw the
letters for the first time at the office of Messrs. Lewis
in Ely-place previously to the first trial. I did not read
the whole of the report of the examination at Marl-
borough-street. I merely read my own evidence. I
did not make any memorandum of the evidence I was
about to give there. Something "might have been
written by me in pencil in a pocket book, but I thiifk it
is merely the time when I attended the police court, and
when I was to go again. I was asked by Mr. Cridland's
clerk to state how I became introduced to Madame
Kachel, in order that he might fill up the brief. I
believe that I supplied it in pencil, and left it with him.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did you not make five pages
in pencil of the evidence you proposed to give at the
Marlborough-street police-court ?
Witness. — I do know that I did, but I will not swear
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — You say you can tell me how
I got those leaves ?
Witness. — I saw something had been torn from my
pocketbook, and my mother told me she had given it to
a gentleman who had called to get a specimen of my
handwriting. He had told her that he could get me a
good situation, that he had come up from the country a
long distance that morning and wished to see me. My
mother said I was absent at business, and he then asked
for a specimen of my writing. She saw that my pocket-
book was lying about, and she told him that was the
only thing she could find. He said that it would not
make any difference so long as it was my writing. She
then gave him the pocket-book. He looked at it and
abstracted some of the leaves. He declined to leave
his address, and said that the situation would be in an
architect's office. I took my pocket-book with me when
I went to the office of Mr. Cridland. I might have left
it open on the table beside my hat. I am not sure
whether the clerk did not write in it. It is just like
what I told the lawyer in Lincoln's-inn-fields ; it is
nearly word for word the same.
Ee-examined by Serjeant BALLANTIXE. — The leaves
were taken from the book before the last trial, but
nothing was said about them then. I am sure they have
never been returned to me. I can produce the pocket-
book to-morrow, and my mother can attend most likely.
I have never had any quarrel or dispute with Madame
Rachel, and I nothing of Mrs. Borradaile whatever.
The trial was then again adjourned till this morning.
At the opening of the Court again this morning at 10
o'clock the trial, which commenced on Monday, of
Sarah Rachel Leverson, better known as Madame
Rachel, on the charge of obtaining from Mary Tucker
Borradaile moneys to the amount of about £1,400 by
certain false and fraudulent pretences, and with intent
to defraud, was resumed.
As on the previous day every available seat in the
Court room was occupied, and even those on the bench
were at times inconveniently crowded. A considerable
part of the audience, as before, was composed of ladies.
Lord Ranelagh, who had been summoned as a witness,
was again in attendance.
The prisoner took her place in the dock a few minutes
after 10 o'clock, and was again allowed to sit. She
appeared in much better health than on any previous
occasion during this or the last trial.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine (with whom were Mr. Mon-
tagu Williams and Mr. Straight) conducted the prose-
cution ; Mr. Digby Seymour, Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr.
Serjeant Sleigh, and Mr. Butler Rigby, the defence.
At the outset, Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, addressing the
Court, suggested that it would be desirable, in the
interests of justice, that the jury at the end of the day
should be afforded an opportunity of inspecting the
premises of Madame Rachel, in order to understand the
structural arrangements of the house.
Upon this suggestion some discussion arose, in the
course of which the COMMISSIONER said the jury might
have a plan of the premises if they wished it, but that
he never before heard in a criminal case of an applica-
tion for a view. There was, at the same time, he said,
nothing to prevent an individual juryman, or even the
whole body, if they wished, going of their own option
to see the premises at the close of the day.
Mrs. Mary Ann Minton was then called and examined
by Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. She said she was the
mother of the lad of that name called as a witness on
the previous day, and remembered a person calling at
her house before the last trial, and taking some leaves
from a pocket-book he had asked to see. She did not
see what was written on those leaves, and she had not
seen them since. They had not been brought back.
The book produced was not the pocket-book, it was
older than the one produced.
The boy Minton was recalled by Mr. Serjeant BAL-
LANTINE, and said the book which had been shown to
his mother was the same book to which he had referred
in his evidence on the previous day.
Replying to Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, he said he bought
the book about the Saturday previous to his first exa-
mination at Marlborough- street Police-court; that
leaves upon there might have been writing, and very
likely was, had been since taken out of the book by a
man, and that the leaves produced were in his (wit-
ness's) handwriting. There was a stroke of black ink
at the top of the front leaf which he did not remember,
and would not swear it was not made at Mr. Cridland's
To Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Since yesterday he had
made inquiries, and now remembered he had written
what appeared on the leaves after his examination at the
Marlborough-street Police-court to refresh his memory.
He had spoken on the subject to his father, who had
reminded him of having done so.
Colonel William Edwardes was called by Mr. MON-
TAGU WILLIAMS. — He said in 1867 he was a captain, and
was promoted in March of that year to the rank of
colonel in the Coldstream Guards. Mrs. Borradaile was
distantly connected with his family, through a branch
dating from many generations back. In 1866 he never
communicated with her by letter or word of mouth.
He forgot whether he had seen her in that year in
Wales, but he thought he had not. He said, emphati-
cally, he had never received one shilling from Mr.
Haynes or from anybody connected with Mrs. Borra-
daile. He never knew anything of the matter until he
read the report of the first proceedings at Marlborough-
street, and then he conferred with his solicitors. He
never set eyes on Madame Rachel until he saw her a
prisoner in the dock of this court on the former trial.
To Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR — He spelt his name Ed-
wardes. There was no other Captain William Edwardes
-but himself in 1866, so far as he knew.
Mr. Alexander Cope, examined by Mr. Serjeant
BALLANTINE. — I am brother-in-law of Mrs. Borradaile.
I am of no profession. I live in Flintshire, North Wales,
and am a magistrate of the county and chairman of
petty sessions. I visited my sister-in-law, Mrs. Borra-
daile, in London, while she was staying at Mr. Smith's.
I came up for that purpose on Saturday, the 1st of
September, 1866, and went on the following Monday to
Madame Rachel's, accompanied by Mrs. Borradaile and
my wife. We arrived there about 12 o'clock in the day.
Madame Rachel shook hands with Mrs. Borradaile and
also with my wife. She wished to do so with me but I
declined. (A laugh.) She then said she wished a pri-
vate interview. I replied, " Certainly not." Madame
Rachel said she was sorry she could not receive us then.
I am not quite sure whether I told her then or subse-
quently what business I had come upon. She asked us
to call again at 2 o'clock. We did so, and I then im-
mediately asked Madame Rachel for what purpose she
had received such large sums, and if there was any truth
as to the introduction of Mrs. Borradaile to Lord Rane-
lagh. She said she knew nothing at all about it, upon
which there was an exclamation on the part of Mrs.
Borradaile and my wife. I then merely said we had
better leave and put the matter into the hands of a
solicitor. She said she knew nothing at all about the
money. We accordingly left with that view. We were
only in the shop about five or six minutes. Nothing
else was said about the subject of money by the prisoner
in my presence.
By Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — As far as my recollection
serves me, those were the exact words. It must have
been from what I heard that I asked about the intro-
duction and receipt of large sums of money on her part.
I returned to Wales the same Monday evening. On the
following Tuesday or Wednesday I received a commu-
nication from Madame Rachel by post.
The letter containing the enclosure was then put in
and read. It was dated " 47 'A, New Bond-street, Sep-
tember, 1866," and in it Madame Rachel said it was her
duty to inform him that after he left London on the pre-
vious day she was led to understand by Mrs. Borradaile
that she had given him her word of honour not to hold
any further communication with her until she had con-
sulted Mr. Haynes, and that she should remove from
George-street at once ; that she (Madame K-achel) had
explained to her the importance of her consulting her
solicitor that morning, for her own sake as well as her
(Rachel's), after what she said about her in his (Mr.
Cope's) presence on the previous day, but that she had
retused up to that time. Madame Rachel went on to say
in the letter he (witness) would please to remember that
it had been said the people in the house and she had
formed a league against Mrs. Borradaile, but that so far
from that being so she assured him she did not know
the people ; that Mrs. Borradaile requested a youth in
her (Rachel's) employ to obtain lodgings for her on the
previous evening, and that he got her apartments in
Davies-street, to which she went ; that Mrs. Borradaile
was aware there was a judgment out against her on a
bill of exchange she had given to a dealer in lace.
Madame Rachel concluded by saying she enclosed him
(Mr. Cope) a copy of a letter signed by Mrs. Borradaile
to her lover, to .the original of which he was quite
welcome, and that Mrs. Borradaile had led her to believe
for six months that she was to be married to her cousin,
Captain William Edwardes.
To Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — On the receipt of that
letter and enclosure, I came up to town and saw Mrs.
Borradaile, to whom I showed the enclosure, and asked
if she had really written the original, and she said she
had. On the previous Monday, when I saw Madame
Rachel, she made no allusion to Mr. Haynes nor to any
other lover but Lord Ranelagh. When Mrs. Borradaile
said she had written the original of the enclosure I,
asked what had induced her to do so. She said she
was under the magnetic influence of Madame Rachel,
and that she wrote it to her dictation.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Madame Rachel says in
a statement of accounts I hold in my hand that on the
1st of September, 1866, that being the clay on which
you first came up to London, she lent £700 to your
Witness. — She says so according [to that statement,
but not a word was said about such a loan when I saw
her on the following Monday.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR observed that on his examination
on the first trial the witness had said nothing about
" magnetic influence."
Witness said he believed he had used these words on
his first examination ; he had not the slightest doubt
that he had.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE, speaking from recollection,
thought the witness had not, and that he was under a
mistake in believing that he had.
Mr. Thomas William O'Keefe was next called. Being
apparently in weak health he was allowed to sit while
giving his evidence.
He said, replying to Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE, I have
been staying in Paris for nine or ten weeks. I saw a
report of the proceedings in this case in Tuesday's
paper. I am not subpoened on either side, but in con-
sequence of seeing my name in the paper E come for-
ward voluntarily. There was never any improper
connexion of any kind between Mrs. Borradaile and
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — Your son's name has also
been mentioned. Let us know something about your-
self and your family.
Witness. — I have a son, and he is in Ireland. He
has not been in this country for three years and five
months. I had another son who died 15 years ago —
my eldest son. My other son is married and has five
children ; he is about 34 years of age and extremely
j Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE (quoting) — He is not "a,
dark, tall, half-military, half-sporting looking man with
a moustache ?" — Nothing of the kind.
Has he worn a black moustache lately ? — Never ; he
is very fair.
Witness continued. — I saw Mrs. Borradaile for the
first time in April last. I found her staying in the Rue
Castiglione, one of the most respectable streets in Paris.
I presented a letter of introduction to her, and that
brought her back to London.
To Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, in cross-examination. — I have
never been to Madame Rachel's in my life. I never
heard of such persons as Cradock, or Crabbe, or Houston,
nor ever saw them. I saw Mrs. Borradaile first in Paris.
I had a communication with her in London about this
trial. I had twice an interview with her in Paris and I
recommended her to come to London and contradict
certain scandalous rumours that had been spread about
her. I was not then aware that civil proceedings had
been taken against her.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did you ever suggest to Mrs.
Borradaile that she would be able to make better terms
by criminal than civil proceedings ?
Witness. — I did nothing of the sort. I recommended
her, in the presence of Mr. Cridland, to take criminal
proceedings against her (Rachel), but I said nothing
about terms. I believe I said it would be the best way
of recovering her property.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Have you had any experience
in your own career of the use of criminal proceedings
in enabling a person to recover money ?
Witness. — Now, I know what you refer to. Some 15
years ago I was tried in this court for obtaining money
from a lady under a promise of marriage. I was found
guilty by the jury, but the learned Recorder discharged
me on my own recognizances, and shortly afterwards the
lady made a confession on oath that her charge was not
true. [A voice in court — " That's not true."] Mr.
Serjeant Parry was my counsel on that occasion.
Did you pay back any money ? — I paid back what
they considered was advanced — £100. I think it a
cruel thing to introduce this subject, for she is a respec-
table married lady.
You made some restitution and the jury found you
guilty ? — The jury found me guilty ; the lady fully ex-
onerated me in the court, as did also the Recorder.
Was there any order for you to pay £20 a year ?—
Nothing of the sort.
Where did the lady make that oath ? — She made it in
the presence of a solicitor, Mr. Wontner, I think, and
in some court. I could produce the document, if
necessary. It is in Paris.
The COMMISSIONER. — We must have it.
Witness continued in cross-examination. — I saw the
boy Minton in the police-court at Marlborough-street,
but never before. Upon my oath I believe I did not
speak to Minton before he gave his evidence at Marl-
borough-street. I am not bound to swear where I am
in doubt. I know a Miss Sutton, and have known her
a long time. She gave me a letter of introduction to
Mrs. Borradaile in Paris. I have heard she made Mrs.
Borradaile's acquaintance in Whitecross-street debtors*
prison. I saw Miss Sutton very often at various places,
and sometimes in my own house. She used to call there
on business once or twice a week. Mrs. Borradaile has
been at my house once or twice, and I think Miss Sutton
was there once when she called. Miss Sutton has taken
care of my house while I have been in Paris. It is a
furnished house. I was so ill in Paris that I sent to
London for my own servant, and Miss Sutton took care
of my house afterwards. I know Mrs. O'Donoghue,
the widow of one of the proposed bail for Madame
Rachel. Her husband was bail for a short time She
lives near the Olympic Theatre, I think in Wych-street.
I went to her house to ascertain whether Mr. O'Donoghue
was good bail, and I found him to be a respectable man
I recommended him to Mr. Cridland has good bail.
That was for £1,000. I had some conversation with
Mrs. O'Donoghue when I went there. She told me that
she knew Madame Rachel. I said to her I thought it a
great pity Madame Rachel should be so foolish as to
defend so bad a case, and that I should advise her
husband not to be bail. I said nothing about terms at
all, nor about a compromise. I suggested that it was
Madame Rachel's duty to pay Mrs. Borradaile. It was
a natural conclusion that if she paid, the criminal pro-
ceedings would cease. The amount was not mentioned.
I said she had better settle the action with Mr. Cridland.
I understood Mr. Cridland had a judgment against her
for the amount in a civil action.
By the COMMISSIONER. — I meant that she should pay
on the action, not on the criminal proceedings.
To Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — I think it was after pro-
ceeding at Maiiborough-street that I said it would be
better for her to pay, but I am not sure, Madame
Rachel was then under commitment for trial. Mrs.
Borradaile was not aware of my interview with Mrs.
O'Donoghue. I do not know that Mrs. Borradaile was
indisposed to prosecute if she could get her money.
Since the prosecution she has told me she pitied Madame
Rachel, and very much regretted it. I did not mean to
convey to Mrs. O'Donoghue that by coming to a settle-
ment the criminal proceeding would be abandoned. My
impression was that if Madame Rachel was bailed she
would never appear to stand her trial, and I cautioned
and advised Mrs. O'Donoghue not to let her husband
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Did you imagine Madame
Rachel would settle a civil claim when a criminal pro-
ceeding was pending against her ? — I thought it advi-
sable for her to do so.
By Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I had not the smallest
authority from Mrs. Borradaile to say anything to Mrs.
O'Donoghue. I did it out of good nature.
The witness, as he was about to leave the box, said,
addressing the Court, that as his character had been at
stake in reference to the criminal prosecution to which
he was subjected some years ago, he would bind himself
to produce the document to which he had referred, not
for his own sake-, as a man of the world, but having
regard to the society in which he moved.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Have you ever paid more of
the money than £20? — I was discharged from that debt.
I will not answer the question. The witness retired.
Miss Sarah Sutton was next called. She said, reply-
ing to Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I am in the literary
profession. I met Mrs. Borradaile in Whitecross-street
Debtor's Prison, where I saw her for the first time. I
was liable at that time for a lady to whom I had given a
power of attorney to save her a large amount of money,
and she did not pay at the time, though she paid after-
wards. I was in Whitecross-street a fortnight or three
weeks. Mrs. Borradaile there made a communication
to me about Madame Eachel. I have known Mr. O'Keefe
for several years, and it was through me that Mrs.
-Borradaile became acquainted with him. I gave her a
letter of introduction to him in Paris. Prior to that I
had never seen Madame Eachel but once. Mrs.
Borradaile, who was then about to leave town, had asked
me to accompany her to Madame Rachel's to ask her to
-supply her with some things for which she had paid her
a large sum of money, and I went there with her. I
believe they were cosmetics, clothes, and other articles.
Madame Eachel said she would send them. Mrs.
Borradaile said to her " When are you going to get
me the money Lord Eanelagh owes me ?" Madame
Eachel said, turning to me, "Lord Eanelagh has
not had any of her money ; has she told you that
he had ?" I said, " Yes." Madame Eachel said,
" Her William has had her money, and he will not
allow her to leave town. He has been walking back-
ward and forward outside for the last two hours." I
asked Mrs. Borradaile what all that meant She
replied '• That horrid wicked woman has been deceiving
you. There is no William ; Lord Eanelagh is the man,"
Madame Eachel appeared confused, and said " Oh, no ;
it's your ' William.' " I said to Madame Eachel " I think
you are both in love with Lord Eanelagh — one lending
him her money, and the other screening him from pay-
ment." (A laugh.) Mrs. Borradaile said several times
there was no William, that Madame Rachel was telling
stories, and was a homed, wicked woman. I asked
Madame Rachel to call William in and let me see him.
She replied — " Oh, my dear madam, I cannot do that ;
I never tell my ladies little intrigues." She did not call
him in. We then left, and when I got outside I looked
all round. Mrs. Borradaile asked what I was looking
for. I never saw anybody looking for her. I accom-
panied her home to George-street, and stayed with her
two hours. I have seen a great deal of her since
By the COMMISSIONER. — I have not been examined
before, though I have been subpcened on both trials.
The witness was not cross-examined.
Mr. Joseph Pike. — I am a jeweller at 136, New
Bond-street. I remember Mrs. Borradaile coming to
my shop about 1866, in May, June, and July con-
tinuously. No one came with her. I remember her
ordering a diamond necklace and tiara. That was, I
think, in the early part of June, 1866. I afterwards
went to 47 A New Bond-street, and there I saw Mrs.
Borradaile and Madame Rachel. In the first instance
I understood there was a to be marriage, and was asked to
take some diamonds there. Mrs. Borradaile told me
that in the presence of Madame Rachel. I went and
brought the diamonds, and showed them to Mrs.
Borradaile. Madame Rachel was present, and the
diamonds were ultimately ordered by Mrs. Borradaile,
and formally delivered. I had them on hand a con-
siderable time, and I got £100 for cancelling the
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Mrs. Borradaile came alone
to my place after that, and I think she examined some
diamonds. She took a look round as ladies will do.
She appeared to understand what she was about, and
to be a shrewd woman of business.
Mr. William Procter, examined by Mr. Serjeant
B ALLAN TINE. — I am a draper, and supplied goods to
Mrs. Borradaile in May, 1866. They amounted to
£150, which she paid me. They were sent to 47a, New
Bond-street. Some of them were wedding goods.
Cross-examined by Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — Mrs. Bor-
radaile selected them, and appeared to be a woman of
Lord Ranelagh, examined by Mr. Serjeant BALLAN-
TINE. — I remember seeing Mrs. Borradaile on two
occasions — once at Rachel's, where I was introduced to
her by the prisoner. I never had the slightest intention
to marry her. I never sent her a vinaigrette or any
article belonging to any relation of mine. I do not
know the person so frequently alluded to here by
the name of William, and I never gave Rachel any
advice or information about William. Every single
word in the letters read in this case, so far as I am con-
cerned, is false. I kept a man-servant in 1866 named
-Long. I have no recollection of ever having given
Mrs. Borradaile my card.
Cross-examined by Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. — I most
solemnly declare that I never gave her my card. On
the top of one of the letters produced there is a cipher,
but it contains neither my crest nor my monogram.
The second time I spoke to Mrs. Borradaile was at Mr.
Cridland's office. That was about two years ago. I
cannot at this distance of time recollect what I said to
her; beyond wishing her " Good morning." I always go
for amusement to the theatricals at Beaufort-house.
Mr. Smith, examined. — I live at 7, George street,
Hanover-square. Mrs. Borradaile had apartments in
my house for nearly two years, during which time she
never had any gentlemen of any kind to visit her. As
a general rule she was in the house every night at 9, 10,
and sometimes she was out as late as 11. She lived
Cross-examined. — She came home one night about 12.
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE here announced that this
was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMouR^said the witnesses he proposed
to call for the defence would be very short in their evi-
dence, and that, with the sanction of the Court and the
learned serjeant, he should put them into the box at
once, and thus close the evidence on both sides,
this arrangement having been at once assented to,
Mr. William Henry Roberts was examined by Mr.
Serjeant PARRY. — I have, he said, acted as attorney for
Madame Rachel since the 3rd of June last. I was not
attorney for her when she was examined at the Marl-
bdrough-street police court. My clerk and I have been
examining her case. The whole of the letters produced
were handed to me by Rachel, and have remained in my
custody. All of them produced on the last trial are
here now, and were duly shown to Mr. Digby Seymour.
All that was done on the last occasion was done at the
discretion of counsel. I employed a person to ascertain
if possible Minton's hand-writing, and to make inquiries
as to his character, but I never gave that person
instructions to promise him a good situation.
Miss Rachel, examined by Mr. Serjeant PARRY. — My
name is Rachel Leverson, and I am 27 years of age.
I am the eldest daughter of the prisoner. I have a
sister named Leonti. She is 20 or 21. My mamma
has seven children. They are all younger than me and
my sister. The youngest is seven years. I have one
brother. In 1866 he was at school. He is now a
medical student in Paris. His name is David. We
never had any man named -Edwardes coming to our
house to work in 1866, or at any other time. My mam-
ma occupied the shop 47a New Bond-street. She only
occupied the shop and a small back room. The room
is a very small one, and the shop is long and narrow.
There is a glass door to the room through which persons
can see from the shop into the room and from the room
into the shop. I remember Mrs. Borradaile coming to
our shop. She was constantly there, but beyond that
I know nothing about her. So far as I can tell, I
know of no relation between her and my mother. I
know nothing of her except that she, like other ladies,
was a customer of our shop. The articles we sold
were very expensive. Though we kept the shop, we
resided at Blackheath in 1866 and 1867. In Septem-
ber, 1866, we took a house, in Maddox-street. That
was used only as a private house, and to my knowledge
Mrs. Borradaile was never at it. I have never seen
I must ask you as regards all those letters signed
" William ;" do you know anything at all about them ? — I
Have you ever written those letters yourself ? — I
It is said that some of the letters purporting to be
written by Mrs. Borradaile were written by somebody
else. Have you ever done so ? — Never.
Nor anybody to your knowledge ? — No. I do not
recollect the introduction of Lord Kanelagh to Mrs.
Borradaile. The boy Minton has never to my know-
ledge been employed by my mother to write letters of
any kind. He was in the employment of an auctioneer
named Taylor. I know of his being turned out of my
mother's house on one occasion. He used to come to
our place with messages from his master, and as he was
complained of upon more than one occasion for his
impertinence we "turned him out.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — I was
not examined at the last trial. I was not then in court,
except upon the first day. I afterwards remained at
home. I think we had the Maddox-street house about
six months before December, 1866, but, as it required
a great many alterations to be made in it, we did not
get into possession until December. My mother took
an opera box at the commencement of the season of
1867. It was a pit tier box she took. I went to Paris
in 1867. I used to sleep at the end of 1866 and the
beginning of 1867 at Blackheath, and sometimes I used
to go there at late hours. My mother sometimes
accompanied me, but not always. She occasionally
remained for the night in London. She cannot write.
Leonti generally wrote for her. There was a boy in the
shop named William. His age was 14 or 15. I can-
not tell what has become of him. I saw him last after
I came from Paris, ancl before the last trial. I then
saw him at the office of Mr. Boberts, the attorney for
the defence. That was after the proceedings at the
Marlborough police court in this case had appeared in
the public papers. He came into my mother's service
some months before I went to Paris. I cannot tell
whether he was there when I went to Paris, nor do I
know whether he is now ] 7 years of age. He looks
very young. I swear upon my solemn oath that I
never saw Mrs. Borradaile at our place in the evening. I
have often been there in the evening myself, but again 1
swear that to my knowledge I never saw her in our
parlour on any evening whatever. I have already said
that I have often seen her there, but it was always hi
the daytime she came. She has been there in the
parlour as well as in the shop. It was at the com-
mencement of 1867 I went to Paris. On my mother's
return from the French capital I took her place there
to conduct her professional business. It is now a very
long time since I saw Mrs. Borradaile. I knew of my
mother receiving sums of money on matters of business
from Mr. Haynes, the attorney. Our shop was closed
at [7 o'clock in the winter months, and at a later hour
in the summer. I do not know of my mother receiving
any letters from Mrs. Borradaile, nor has she ever told
me that she has received any from her. I never
heard of my mother receiving any letters to be given to
Mrs. Borradaile. My mamma was a good deal at home.
Generally speaking, I used to leave the shop in the
month of September about 6 o'clock, but the time of
leaving depended very much upon the amount of busi-
ness that was going on. It is a great mistake to
suppose that September was the dead season with us,
though it is perfectly true that balls and parties are not
so rife in London then as they are in the height of the
season. Sometimes Leonti used to remain at the shop
later than I did. I knew nothing of Minton being
turned away for rudeness, except from what my sister
told me. I never saw him in my life. "We never kept
any books at our establishment. There was a letter
sent from our place to Mr. Cope, Mrs. Borradaile's
brother-in-law, and that is in the handwriting of the
boy William. I know his handwriting, because I
have seen him directing parcels.
Several letters were here handed to the witness, and
she was asked if she could identify the handwriting in
any of them. She replied that she could not. They
were not, she said, written by her, nor by Leonti, nor by
William. The long account produced during the trial,
which purported to contain a listof various sums of money
paid by Eachel to Mrs. Borradaile, and which the latter
receipted, was next handed to her. The body of this —
the account of the sums paid — was, she stated, written
by Leonti, and the receipts were in the handwriting of
Cross — examination continued. — Leonti went to Paris
in 1867, and there she assisted in mamma's professional
business. Before she went she was at the Maddox —
street house. William the shopboy is the only William
I knew. I never heard of any other, except that I
know the name to be a very ordinary one. Mrs.
Borradaile used to be in and out our shop a great many
times during the day.
Now, as you used to assist in the shop, of course
you are well acquainted with the business your mother
carried on there ? — I am.
Then listen to this list of your charges, which I quote
from one of your pamphlets : — " Royal Nursery soap
two guineas a bottle ; lioyal Palace soap, two guineas
a bottle ; Victoria soap, two guineas a bottle ; Princess's
soap, two guineas a bottle ; Alexandra soap, two
guineas a bottle ; Prince of Wales's soap, two guineas a
bottle ; Honey of Mount Hymetius soap, two guineas a
bottle ; Peach blossom soap, two guineas a bottle."
(Great laughter.) These, I believe, were some of the
soaps you sold ? — They were.
Then you sold "Magnetic Rock Dew Water of Sahara,
for removing wrinkles (renewed laughter), two guineas
u bottle ;" and "Liquid flowers and herbs for the bath,
a guinea a bottle." I find among the various other
preparations that you sold "a bottle of Jordan water
for 10 guineas and 20 guineas." (Great laughter.)
Now, I ask you, Miss Leverson, did you believe this?
Did you believe that this Jordan water was a reality
or sham ? — I believed it to be a reality.
That is, you mean to tell the Court and jury on your
oath that you believe that water for which you were
charging 10 and 20 guineas a bottle came from the
river Jordan ? I believe it is water brought from the
From the east ! Well, but that is very indefinite, for
you know the east may mean Wapping. (Great
laughter). What I ask you is, do you mean to say it
came from the river Jordan ? Yes.
How do you know that ? — Because it was consigned
to us sometimes.
By whom ? — Oh ! I cannot expose our professional
secrets. (Great laughter.) If you will come to our
shop and buy a bottle, I may tell you. (Renewed
I never like to be rude to a lady, but I really must
press you for an answer to my question. I ask you
again, do you mean to swear upon your solemn oath
that this water came from the river Jordan ? — I say I
believe it did come from there, but, of course, I did not
see it brought.
And you say it was consigned to you ? — Yes.
By an agent ? — Yes
By whom ? — Oh ! You want our professional secret
to come out, but I cannot answer your question.
Well, now, where is the river Jordan ? (A pause.)
Tell me where it is ? — Is it not near Jerusalem ?
And do you say that you have an agent there ? — I
don't know whether he is at the Jordan, but I say he
•consigns the Jordan water to us.
Who is he ?— I'll not tell you. (Great laughter.)
Well, now, here is another pamphlet of yours, which
I beg to hand up to you. I want to know who wrote
that pamphlet ? — My sister and myself composed it.
Then listen to this extract from it : —
" In the interior of Sahara, or the Great Desert, is a
magnetic rock, from which water distils sparingly in the
form of dew (laughter), which is possessed of extraor-
dinary property. Whether a latent electricity be im-
parted by magnetism, or an additional quantity of
oxygen enters into its composition, it is not easy to say
(More laughter.) But it appears to have the property
of increasing the vital energies as it restores the colour
of grey hair apparently by renewing the circulation in
its capillary tubes (great laughter), the cessation of which
occasions greyness ; and it gives the appearance of youth
to persons of considerable antiquity. (Great laughter.)
This water is brought to Morocco on swift dromedaries
for the use of the Court, and its virtues are much
extolled by their physicians. It might be called the
antipodes of the Lethean Styx of ancient times." (Roars
I have only another question to ask you — namely, did
you know of the £1,000 your mother obtained from
Mrs. Borradaile ? — I did not.
Did your mother never tell you of that ? — Never.
He-examined by Mr. Serjeant PARKY. — The prices for
the soaps and powders to which my attention has been
called are charged to all our customers alike, and we
have had a vast number of customers besides Mrs.
Now, do you state positively that the extract read is
from the Illustrated London Neivs ? — I do. I have
heard that Mr. Haynes transacted a large amount of
business for my mother for two years before Mrs.
Borradaile became known to her. The boy William
was discharged for theft. That fact was brought to the
knowledge of our attorney (Mr. Eoberts), who acted on
his own discretion in not examining him at the last trial.
When the London season is over we supply articles in
our business to Brighton and other fashionable places.
Fashionable names, such as the Alexandra soap, the
Prince of Wales's soap, and so on, may be applied to
soap as well as to other articles.
Miss Leonti Levison, examined by Mr. Serjeant
PARRY — -I am the younger sister of the last witness.
In 1866 and 1867 I assisted my mother in the business
in New Bond-street. I recollect seeing Mrs. Borradaile
frequently in 1866 and 1867. I have never written a
sham letter to my mother in the name of " William."
Nor have I written any of the letters produced
upon this trial in the name of " William." There
was a young lad named William in my mother's
employ. I never knew anybody in our employ named
Edward. The boy Minton used to come round to our
shop with messages from his master, Mr. Taylor. I
never saw him write. He used to be in our small
parlour sometimes. I complained of his impertinent
conduct to Mr. Taylor, and I turned him away on one
occasion. There was no friendly feeling between him
and my mother.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — My
sister and I managed my mother's business. I know
nothing of the £1,000 my mother got from Mrs. Borra-
daile. I had a great deal of anxiety about it, but
I swear I do not up to this moment know whether
my mother received that money or not. I recollect my
mother paying notes and gold on one occasion to Mrs.
Borradaile. I cannot tell the day of the month, or the
month, when those notes and gold were paid. It was in
1866 or 1867. I often saw mamma lend Mrs. Borra-
daile money, but I never saw Mrs. Borradaile return
what she borrowed. It was in the evening when it was
given to her. I cannot tell you within six months when
it was lent. Mrs. Borradaile was always borrowing
money — twice in some weeks, and oftener in others.
Almost from the first of their acquaintance — and
mamma knew Mrs Borradaile for years — the latter was
borrowing money. She was borrowing in most of the
months of June, July, August, September, October,
November, and December, 1866. I cannot say about
the largest amount she ever borrowed. On on occasion
she borrowed either £100 or £200, I forget which.
Whether that was the largest amount she ever borrowed
I cannot tell. She borrowed the £100 or £200 in 1866
or 1867. (A laugh.) I think it was a few months
before the end of 1866 or a few months after the
beginning of 1867. That is the nearest date I can give.
She borrowed it in our shop. What she said when she
borrowed it I do not know. She did not say what she
wanted the money for. She did not say, "Madame
Rachel, I would feel obliged by your lending me £100
or £200." Shortly after mamma gave her the money.
Whether mamma took out the money from her pocket
or not I cannot say. I do not know where the money
was got from. Mamma had no banker, and never had
one to my knowledge. She kept her money in the
house. The reason I did not pay more attention to this
transaction was because I was attending to some heavy
business in the shop at the time. Mamma was in the
habit of lending money to ladies. She kept her money
in a cabinet in the little parlour. I cannot point to any
date or time when any more money was lent to Mrs.
Borradaile. I do not know whether mamma asked
Mrs. Borradaile for a receipt for the £100 or £200.
Mamma started the opera-box at the beginning of the
opera season in 1867. I was not the young lady that
Lord Ranelagh was talking to when mamma introduced
him to Mrs. Borradaile. I never saw Mrs. Borradaile
at the shop after dark, but I know mamma lent her
money in the evening. I cannot tell from 10 to 100
times how often money was lent to her in the evening.
Mamma very seldom went out during business hours.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant PAKRY. — When the
£100 or £200 was lent my attention was not particularly
drawn to the transaction. Mrs. Borradaile might have
called at our shop as far back as 1864. I and my
sister were busily employed in papering up the powders
and making other preparations for sale, and, therefore,
we had nothing to do with money transactions. My
father is alive, but he and mamma are not on very good
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE. — He lives at 25 King-
To the COMMISSIONER. — We did not sleep at the shop.
We slept at Blackheath. I only stopped in London at
night when Mamma was ill.
The account was here handed to the witness, which
purported to contain receipts from Mrs. Borradaile for
the £100, £80, £70, and other sums already mentioned,
and she said these receipts were written by Mrs. Borra-
daile. Letters were also handed her, but the hand-
writing she said she was unable to identify.
This having closed the evidence for the defence,
Mr. DIGBY SEYMONR proceeded to address the jury on
behalf of the prisoner. He commenced by saying that
he was there for the second time to argue in the name
of justice for an acquittal of his client. He complained
of the injustice manifested towards her by those who
had piled up publications against her around the doors
leading to that court — publications, which were of the
very vilest description, not containing in them a particle
of legal truth, which had nothing about them except
the malice of those who had put them together, and the
sole object of which was to create a prejudice in the
mind of the jury against the woman at the bar. Again,
it was an injustice, in these days of a free press, that
from day to day, while the jury were sitting, sworn to
give an impartial verdict in this case, comments should
have been made in the columns of daily newspapers
which were tinged with a feeling of partisanship. He
cared not for the comments made in those newspapers
upon himself. He thanked God that he felt sufficiently
armed against such attacks as to be able to declare
boldly that no philippics or taunts should ever have the
effect of preventing him from discharging his duty in an
intrepid manner. The remarks of which he did com-
plain had reference to what was said respecting the
evidence of particular witnesses, the mode and legal
sequence of the arguments, and the conduct generally
of the defence ; and such was the prejudice which these
remarks were likely to create that the jury ought to go
down upon their knees and pray that God would enable
them to do justice in this case. He saw that pens were
at work in the press calculated to deprive the jury of
their reason (a laugh), and to prevent them from exer-
cising that impartial and unbiassed judgment which
juries were always expected to evince. He candidly
believed that those responsible for this prosecution
would never have put Mrs. Borradaile a second time
into the box as a witness if they had not calculated on
the fact that such an amount of prejudice would be
created by the press as would prevent the jury from
deciding on the actual issue now before them. But
though he had thus enlarged upon this subject at the
outset, he could not believe — however, some of the
jury might have been affected by the prejudice created,
and he would not believe until he had some proof to
the contrary — that when he had addressed the 12
men then in the box upon the iacts he should appeal
to them in vain. On the contrary, he entertained hopes
that in the end, alter that appeal, they would return a
calm, impartial, and honest verdict. What meant the
introduction into the case of the Jordan Water ? Were
they now trying a question as to whether high-sounding
names should be given to articles of trade ? Why, there
was not an article sold, nothing which we ate, drank, or
wore, that had notfrom time to time been dignified by dis-
tinguished appellations by tradesmen. For instance, the
names of the Queen, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess
Alexandra had been freely used in shops, and the intro-
duction of these names had been considered pardonable
upon the part of those who in this manner brought their
wares more prominently than they otherwise would have
been brought under the notice of the public. The jury
therefore, were not trying now whether the prisoner
had given her cosmetics to the world under high-sound-
ing names. That was not the charge against her, and
he hesitated not to say that the attempt of the learned
serjeant opposite to make that the question for decision
was practically to insult the jury, and to occupy their
minds with something utterly foreign to the issue. It
might be that the prisoner had asked very high prices
for her preparations ; but if she obtained customers at
those prices, if the fashionable world lent themselves to
create a demand for those cosmetics, was she to be
punished for having furnished them with a supply ?
Whatever might be the hidden key for explaining the
mystery of Bond- street, whether Lord Kanelagh was
William, or whether somebody else was William, one
thing was certain, that what occurred was between
Mrs. Borradaile and the prisoner, and that there was
something clandestine, something in the nature of an
intrigue, could not be doubted. Whatever might be
said against the prisoner, this must be admitted that
she had given her children a good education. The real
question for decision was whether the prosecution had
satisfied the jury that the prisoner had obtained the
money by means of false pretences. That there was
something strange on the part of Mrs. Borradaile was
clear, else why was she living in London, moving about
from coffeehouse to coffeehouse, while her daughter and
other relations were all living in Wales ? That there
was a "William " in the case, though he had not been
produced, was as true as that the sun shone ; and that
the correspondence was genuine, and not a forgery, as
the learned serjeant alleged, but failed to prove, was
equally beyond dispute. The learned counsel dwelt
forcibly upon the comparison which existed between
the letters and documents, and said that he would ap-
peal to the judgment of the jury whether there was any
foundation for the suspicion that a forgery had been
committed. Could it be conceived that a hundred
letters, written at all times upon each sides of the paper
crossed and doubly-crossed, with post-scripts and
double postscripts, were forgeries ? How could they
reconcile it in their minds that persons who would be
capable of forgery would be capable also of giving, in
their own handwriting, the means of their detection.
The next theory of the prosecution was that Mrs.
Borradaile wrote the letters as an unconscious being,
that she was, as it were, under " magnetic influence "
— a widow bewitched ; that she had drunk some
strange waters, with some strange and fancied impulse
thrilling through her brain ; that she had been operated
upon by some secret influence ; and that she was a cap-
tive in the hands of the chief juggler — Madame Rachel.
They had heard of such things as electric biology, and
of a mysterious affinity being created towards persons
of both sexes by which two hearts and two minds had
been brought together. The present was an age of
wonders, no doubt, but could they satisfy their minds
that this strange magnetic influence was at work when
Mrs. Borradaile called at the linendraper's and selected
the apparel, and when it was proved she did her business
like any other woman in her proper senses ? At that
time, then, had she drunk the poisoned draught ? Had
she then been filled with those waters which disturbed
the power of her mind, and neutralized the thinking
being within her ? Again, he would ask them, was she
under the influence of this magnetic power when she
proceeded to her jewellers, selected the diamonds, and
cheapened the price ? So far from being a fool, she
appears to have been a shrewd woman of business, and
quite capable of knowing what she was doing, for she
wrote in a flowing hand the check and the words, "Pay-
able at Grindlay's and Co.'s Mary Tucker Borradaile."
Could they, as reasonable and sensible men, accept, after
this, the preposterous notion of the magnetic influence ?
It was also alleged that she had fallen suddenly into the
hands of a charmer ; but would this apply to what
occurred in May, 1866, when she resumed her acquaint-
ance with Madame Rachel ? Was it not too much to
say that this educated woman had become suddenly
paralyzed, fascinated, and subdued by the overwhelming
power and strange witchcraft of his client ? And the
prosecution had propounded another and an equally
strange theory, — viz., that of ardent liquors. He would
ask them if it was not too bad to assert that for the
first time now. The learned serjeant, however, had
thought proper to infer that Mrs. Borradaile had been
placed under the influence of drink. If she was, in
reality, a woman who would indulge in ardent drinks^
they would be able to value her character ; but they
must remember that if she indulged one day the in-
fluence would have been gone by the next, and that it
was not likely that she would go again to be intoxi-
cated. He contended that there was no ground for
that suggestion, but that, on the contrary, Mrs.
Borradaile was a clear-headed and business-like woman.
In proof of this he alluded to the admirable way in
which many of the letters were written, clearly
showing that Mrs. Borradaile was under no such in-
fluence whatever. They were not the compositions of a
woman whose hand trembled and whose brain was con-
fused by intoxication, but they were evidently written
when she had her senses about her. Neither was there
any suspicion that Mrs. Borradaile had been drugged
by the prisoner, and altogether he must protest against
such a monstrous thing as that propounded by the pro-
secution. Then, again, there was that of the dictation.
Mrs. Borradaile was not in her teens ; she was a widow
of an officer who had seen the world ; she was evidently
in " the winter of her discontent," and a little beyond 50.
She had seen life, and knew how to draw and what to
do with her money, and yet they were asked to believe
that she did everything at the dictation of Madame
Rachel. He trusted they would look at this theory as
something which was totally inconsistent with reason
and sense. Could they rest satisfied with the theory
that Lord Ranelagh was to lead from the steps of St.
George's, Hanover-square, a blooming, renovated bride
in the person of Mrs. Mary Tucker Borradaile ? The
scene surely would be too strange for them to believe.
Mrs. Borradaile, the customer of Madame Rachel and
the widow of a colonel, happened to go into a shop in
Bond-street to make purchases, and, no doubt, to
execute an arrangement for the restoration of her faded
charms. She saw outside a gentleman, and was told
that he was to be her lover ; the door opened, and then
the introduction, " Lord Eanelagh, Mrs. Borradaile,"
followed and nothing more. One would have expected
more than this, but still this appeared to have been all.
There must be some beginning to love. He saw that
his friend (Serjeant Ballantine) shook his head. His
love had no beginning (laughter), and he (Mr. Digby
Seymour hoped it would have no end ; he was not the
man to want any magnetic influence to aid him : cer-
tainly no ardent spirits (renewed laughter) ; but in the
case of Mary Tucker Borradaile, one would have ex-
pected to see a little more delay and a little more coy
resistance and delicate difficulty. (Laughter.) Here
was a widow who had been married six and twenty
years, and whose husband had been dead for seven —
a widow who was beyond her prime, but a widow who
evidently had extraordinary confidence in the powers
of her old charms, and in the matchless influence of
her voluminous locks — was she the person, then to
believe that the man whom she had only momentarily
seen outside was Lord Ranelagh, and that he was the
man who was going to marry her ? Could they for one
moment conceive that when she was introduced at the
door to an English nobleman she was under the belief
that he intended to make her his bride ? It would be
monstrous to conceive such a thing. But this was, in
fact, the whole point of his case. They must be satisfied
that there was some false pretence of an intended mar-
riage, and that Mrs. Borradaile believed it. It would
not do for her simply to say she believed it. As jury-
men they must bring to bear their own experience
of life before they accepted any such theory. They
must apply the test to this as to any other case, and
decide whether, in their opinion she believed she was
an affianced bride at the time. It would be impossible, he
submitted, for them to believe it. Was it true that she
asked for his card, and, if so, why did she take it ? Was
it that she might know his name and address or was
it that she might call upon him ? If she did all this in
her senses what became of the theory that she was
under the influence of potent whisky ? The learned
counsel then proceeded to argue that if they were true
the jury could not convict, and if they were false they
•could not convict either, unless they charged one person
with falsehood upon another person who was confessedly
false. He would ask them to throw the balance of
probability into the scale, and then the testimony of
Lord Ranelagh, in respect to the giving of the card,
would be found to outweigh that of Mrs. Borradaile.
She had sworn that she got his Lordship's card, while
he denied having given it her ; but if such really was
the case as she had asserted, why had not the card been
preserved ? She had sworn that she got the card, but
she had no memory of where it came from. If he was
to have been her lover, would she not have kept it as
some indication of the introduction. He ventured to
assert that it was not until those absurd letters had
been brought to light — the letters of " Dear Tommy " —
that Lord Ranelagh exchanged a word with Mrs.
Borradaile. The contention all along had been that the
letters were written at the dictation of Madame Rachel,
she being at the time the manager of a matrimonial
intrigue between Mrs. Borradaile and Lord Ranelagh.
If so would Madame Rachel have suggested to Mrs.
Borradaile that she should address the very first letter
which she wrote from a coffeehouse at Paddington ?
He would ask them to mark this well. Madame Rachel
was said to be a woman of the would — clever, though
ignorant, crafty, though illiterate, a woman of expe-
rience, who knew that she was dealing with a lady, and
yet it was said that she suggested such an address on
the very first Jove letter between the widow of a colonel
and Viscount Ranelagh. Mrs. Borradaile had said that
Lord Kanelagh was introduced to her as a rich and
good man, and yet she, the careful widow, said the
suggestion was made to her that she should date her
first letter from a small coffeehouse. There was some-
thing about this which was remarkably strange It would
be found there were two letters written at the same
time — one to Madame Rachel, the other to " William,"
supposed to be Lord Ranelagh. The latter was dated from
the coffeehouse, but that to Madame from the Great
Western Hotel. What was the meaning of that ? How
could that be explained ? Was it likely that Lord
Ranelagh would have paid attention to any lady at a
coffeehouse ; would he have gone there to see his
intended bride ? Fancy Lord Ranelagh being made to
go as a lover to a coffeehouse at Paddington ? The
letter was written evidently before she was quite over-
come by the magnetic influence which afterwards was
said to operate over her. In the letter there was this
remarkably phrase, — " As before, I do not wish for
any intrusion." If such a letter as this had fallen into
the hands of any of the jury, and they knew that it
came from a lady, would the inference not have been
that some prior meeting had been held — a meeting, it
might have been, between her and " William ?" It was
consistent, at all events with the suggestion that there
was some other person, not Lord Ranelagh, who had
visited her at the coffeehouse. The learned gentleman
again alluded to the letters and to the theories of the
prosecution, and said that for it to be suggested that
Mrs. Borradaile was not in her right senses when she
wrote them was a monstrous, a base, and a preposterous
invention, and an endeavour to do by prejudice what
they had not dared to establish before the jury by testi-
mony upon oath. The letter sent by Mrs. Borradaile to-
" Dear William" asking him to meet her at a coffee-
house near the Davis-street baths, was next read and
commented on, and the learned counsel called attention
to the fact that no attempt had been made by the
prosecution to support Mrs. Borradaile in respect to
this, or to prove that a message had been left at the
house as suggested. He then passed on to observe that
the question of the bath had occupied the attention of
people who had exposed Madame Rachel to ribald
songs and cruel jests, songs as wretched in composition
as they were wicked in invention. There were headings
in various papers, and pictures in police sheets also
utterly and abominably cruel, which had been pre-
judicial to the woman who was then on her trial. He
would venture to assert that if the jury were to inspect
her house they would find nothing to indicate those
deeds of uncleanness and immorality which it was said
had been practised there. Talk of baths ! Why there
were no such things there, and the assertion that had
been made about " eyes of eager lust" was altogether a
wicked and abominable invention. There was no pre-
tence for it. The only bath that Mrs. Borradaile took
was at the public baths in Davies-street, and it was a
monstrous thing to enshroud the prisoner with such a
cloud of prejudice as required all the efforts of her
counsel to tear the veil away, in order that justice
might be done her. It would not do for advocates to be
nice or tender about feelings ; their duty was to get at
the truth. It did not lie upon the prisoner affirmatively
to prove her innocence, but upon the prosecution to
establish her guilt, and if he succeeded in the proposi-
tions he had laid down, then he doubted not that an
acquittal was clear and certain. The learned counsel next
proceeded to argue that "Dear William" was some person
other than Lord Ranelagh, and that the allusion which
had been made to his lordship was made by Mrs. Borradaile
for the purpose of clearing herself of the imputation
which lodged upon her, as was proved by the words of
Madame Rachel when she accused her of spending her
money upon a paramour. She was evidently playing
off a trick upon her friends by pretending that her
lover was Lord Ranclagh ; but were the flannels, the
shirts, and the socks for his lordship, or were they not
for some other " Dear "William ?" with whom she was
about to fly to Paris.
At 5 o'clock Mr. Digby Seymour said it was impos-
sible to conclude his address that evening, being physi-
cally unable to proceed further.
The trial was again adjourned till this morning.
This morning, at the opening of the Court, the trial
of Sarah Rachel Levison, better known as Madam
Rachel, began on monday, on the charge of obtaining
from Mary Tucker Borradaile, by certain false and fraud-
ulent pretences, the sum of £1,400. with intent to
defraud, was resumed.
As from the first the court-house was crowded
throughout the clay. Lord Ranelagh was again present.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine (with whom were Mr.
Montagu Williams and Mr. Straight) conducted the
prosecution ; Mr. Digby Seymour. Q. C., Mr. Serjeant
Parry, Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, and Mr. Butler Digby the
A conversation arose between the Commissioner and
Mr. Digby Seymour as to the admission of some letters,
and the production of Mr. Haynes' bill of costs.
A juryman asked to be allowed to see the bill.
The COMMISSIONER said he had looked over it, and
found there a number of matters, the charges amount-
ing altogether to about £140.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR submitted that in no shape or
form could the bill of costs be put in as evidence against
Madame Rachel. It had been produced on the part
of the prosecution. He wished to see the cash account
to which Mr. Haynes had referred.
THE COMMISSIONER asked if Mr. Haynes was present ?
His son (who was in court) replied that he was to ill
to attend, owing to a spasmodic affection of the
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR intimated his intention to
dispute the account.
The COMMISSIONER said Mr. Haynes had sworn that
the only knowledge he had of the different sums he had
paid was contained in a sheet of a paper which bore
Madame Rachel's initials, and which had passed into
her hands. He had also stated that he thought he
could make up the account from other documents which
he had in his possession.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said if the draught was produced
he would not complain, otherwise he should have to
comment upon the circumstance in the course of his
The COMMISSIONER said if Mr. Hajnes could not
attend the matter would have to stand as it was.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR then resumed his address. He
thanked the jury for the patient attention they had
given to his remarks so far, and reminded them that
he had concluded on the previous day by referring to
the remarkable letter of the 4th of September. Hav-
ing looked at the contents of that letter backward and
forward, and thought of it constantly, he confessed he
was unable to see by what legitimate argument his
learned friend could reconcile it with the guilt of the
prisoner. It was a letter to Mr. Cope, the exposure of
which, they must remember, would have spoilt the
game it was alleged Madame Rachel was then playing
would have had the effect of stopping the receipt of
money from Haynes to herself, and have enabled the
family of Mrs. Borradaile to frustrate the fraudulent
scheme Madame Rachel was then said to be practising.
Mr, Digby Seymour next alluded to letters dated
August, I860, and March and May, 1867, and said that
if their whole tone and the postscript were considered,
the conclusion was irresistible that they were the com-
position of Mrs. Borradaile, and not the language of an
uneducated woman like his client. The allusions they
contained showed that a communication was being held
at the time between Mrs. Borradaile and the mysterious
being" William." Her statement as to not wishing to
go to Mount-street was proof that it could not refer to
Lord Ranelagh, for his Lordship did not reside there.
The letter contained these sentences : — " I was at Mr.
Haynes' yesterday, and he has arranged everything
satisfactorily between Madame Rachel and myself."
Again," I have ordered the shirt, and they will be sent
home to-morrow morning," and " Madame Rachel has
promised, in the presence of Mr. Haynes, that she will
not trouble me about money matters, as she will be
satisfied with any arrangement I may think proper to
make." Could this be the language of Madame Rachel,
and was it dictated to Mrs. Borradaile ? Could they
for one moment doubt that it was the language of Mrs.
Borradaile, and that she was dealing with the relation
that evidently, existed between herself and "William."
" I am afraid to go to Rachel's for fear of Mr. Bauer ;
she told me yesterday he had an execution against me.
I offered to give him back the lace, but he would not
take it." Surely these were remarkable facts. That
Mr. Bauer had an execution against her was true, and
if she had been told so by Rachel, was it likely
she would go to her shop to write this very letter at
her dictation ? Mrs. Borradaile could not have been at
the prisoner's when that letter was written. It was
clearly one of those things which spoke for itself.
Again, "She has exposed the whole affair about the
lace, the very thing I did not wish to be known. It
was most foolish of her, exposing my affairs to my
family. She says she did it to prevent my being
arrested. This affair has nearly broken my heart. I
did not know that you were ill, or I would not have
upbraided you for coldness and unkindness ; but I
thought you had neglected me." By what possible
argument could it be said that this was the dictation of
the prisoner ? Would Madame Rachel have suggested
the words, " She has exposed the whole affair," the very
thing that Mrs. Borradaile did not wish her to do ?
Then, again, the purchase of the neckties and socks.
Could it be suggested for one moment that they were
for Lord Ranelagh ? It was a proposition, upon the face
of it, absurd to say that Madame Rachel told her to put
down all this — awake or asleep, or under whatever
magnetic influence Mrs. Borradaile at the time might
have been. " All my family have cut me. They say
they will have nothing to do with such an incorrigible
as they thought I was !" Was this language to send to
Lord Ranelagh — to the man who loved and admired
her ? " My dear William, — I shall see Mrs. Lilley, as
you desire ; she will, no doubt, be of service to you."
Who was Mrs. Lilley ? He had tried to ascertain, but
failed. At all events, it was certain that the allusion
was made to some person in no way connected with
Madame Rachel. Neither had there been an attempt
on the part of the prosecution to connect the prisoner
with that lady. No doubt she was known to Mrs. Borra-
daile, but that she was a person who was not associating
with Lord Ranelagh was clear. The next passage was
as remarkable as the others : — " It seems you know the
overland-route to my heart." Surely that could not be
the language of Madame Rachel ! Mrs. Borradaile,
they must remember, was a lady who had travelled ; she
had been in India, and was the widow of a Colonel.
Mr. Seymour commented upon other passages, relating
to the inspection by Mrs. Borradaile of the lace, the
diamonds, the carriage, and the house, and said it was
remarkable that none of the tradesmen had been pro-
duced by the prosecution to verify the assertions that
were made. Where was the coachmaker and the house
agent, and where was the house situate ? " My own
dear William, — I am very much surprised and annoyed
at Madame Rachel's impertinence." Very remarkable,
this! "It was a serious quarrel, and all concerning
you." What on earth could the quarrel be about ? Why
should Mrs. Borradaile and Madame Rachel quarrel ?
" A serious quarrel," they would remember, " and all
concerning' you." They had heard something of an ex-
traordinary scene at Mr. Haynes', it was true, some
allusion was made by Madame Rachel to Mrs. Borra-
daile's extravagance in spending her money on a para-
mour ; and probably this was the solution of the
passage. " Not one member of my family will hold any
communication with me for forming, as they say, such a
degraded connexion with you." What could this be ?
A degraded connexion with whom ? Certainly not
with Lord Ranelagh, but probably with some un-
known lover under the pretence of being Captain
William Edwardes. WTas Madame Rachel likely to
dictate such words as "a degraded connexion with Lord
Ranelagh ?'' It was more probable that the allusion
referred to a paramour, such as had been referred to
before before Mr. Haynes. "Am I to believe that
the woman you are travelling with, and whom you in-
troduced to me as your sister " — could this be the dic-
tation of Madame Rachel, or would it support the theory
that had been set up by the prosecution that Mrs.
JBorradaile when she wrote was under the influence of a
charmer ? " My own dear William, it is very kind of
you to take care of my comb and frissette, which is my
own hair." Was not this the language of Mrs. Borra-
daile ? It was a small matter, perhaps, but it would aid
the jury in solving the labrynth of mystery by which the
case was surrounded. "The hairdresser in the High-
street, Cheltenham, made it — the man who used to
shave you." How could they reconcile this with the
theory that it was Lord Ranelagh ? It was certain that
he had not been under the hands of a barber for years.
(Laughter.) And when interrogated, how had Mrs.
Borradaile tried to get out of it ? She said that his
head was shaved. (Laughter.) That was just like Mrs.
Borradaile. " I have no one to care for me but you,
and I love you all the more for it. I have given you all
that a woman holds dear." A terrible passage this.
As men of the world, what would be their opinion if
they read this in a book ? But what was Mrs. Borra-
daile's account ? With a smile upon her countenance
she said that all a woman held dear was her money.
There was nothing to show that the prisoner had oper
ated on the vain mind of Mrs. Borradaile. The request
that " dear William " would not join the mob lest he
should be shot, the taking of the photograph to bed,
and the attempt to screen him from her family were re-
ferred to as being consistent with the theory of the
defence that they were not dictated by the prisoner, but
were the ready effusions of Mrs. Borradaile. He never
could sufficiently impress upon the minds of the jury
that, by whatever means the letters came into the pos-
session of Rachel, they had no right to entertain scruples
of delicacy or queries of difficulty as to the mode in
which that strange circumstance had occurred. Tie was
not called upon to supply the fact as to how that had
happened. It was for the prosecution to make out their
case without any flaw or loophole ; it was not for the
defence to sustain the weakness of the prosecution. If
there was a flaw left, creating a doubt, the benefit of
that doubt ought to be given to the prisoner. She was,
•of course, obliged to be silent, and could not throw any
light upon any part of the transaction. Upon the ex-
tremely mysterious point as how the letters came into
her possession the whole thing was wholly inexplicable
upon the theory of the prosecution. Mrs. Borradaile,
who according to her own account, seemed throughout
this case to have been walking in her sleep — drugged,
subdued, captivated, enamoured of some man named
William — did not pretend to account for it. All she
could say was that she had written the letters to Lord
Ranelagli at Rachel's dictation, in one of those letters
saying to his lordship, " You have forgotten having seen
me in the bath." And this she wrote to an English
nobleman ! Was this the invenl ion of a disorganized
brain ? He (Mr. Seymour) recollected a case which had
'been tried at Westminster Hall, when it appeared that
certain letters then produced, written by and to a lady
were the mysterious workings of the human brain of
'One and the same individual. He should be glad, if he
.could, to account for the eccentricities of Mrs. Borra-
daile by supposing that she was labouring under
some affliction of Providence, but even that hypo-
thesis could not be set up in her defence, for it
appeared that upon almost everything, save her over-
weening vanity, she was perfectly sane and collected.
In others of her letters she went 011 to speak to " dear
Tommy " about horse racing, what he was to win by
backing horses next season, and what the Marquis of
Hastings had lost in a single day ; and then there
followed in one of them this very remarkable passage : —
"I will go to the baths at the Argyle Booms this
evening ; I will then wait for you at the publichouse at
the back of Regent-street, and will ask for a private
room for us there." I will put on a dark dress and veil
and do you put on your Sunday beard and whiskers."
(A laugh.) Here she was absolutely appointing an
interview with a nobleman in a common publichouse. What
was the meaning of her breaking off with William and
taking on with Tommy ? This, — that having spent her
money partly on William without being able to get him
to marry her, she now thought she would excite his
jealousy by addressing her future letters to Tommy.
He (the learned counsel) contended that there was not
one honest, solemn, reasonable particle of truth in the
allegation of Mrs. Borradaile that Rachel had dictated
the letters. Minton's evidence was utterly unreliable
and if the jury credited it for a moment they would be
relying on a broken reed. At Marlborough-street that
boy was wholly unable to identify the handwriting of
any one of the letters. But afterwards, when the whole
of the correspondence had appeared in the newspapers,
he came to the conclusion that he thought he could
identify an " o " in one of the letters. If this case rested
solely upon the evidence of Mrs. Borradaile the jury
would not hang a cat (a laugh) ; if it rested on that of
Minton, and he was believed, then undoubtedly the
indictment might be sustainable. But he could not be
believed, particular!}' when the jury recollected what he
said about the pocket book, and about his going down
as a volunteer to Mr. Cridland's office. That pocket
book contained five pages of a pencil entry by him which
were copied by Mr. Cridland's clerk. Why had not that
clerk been produced ? The pencil entry consisted of
what he had read in the newspapers of his own evidence
at Marlborough-street, and in that entry he stated that
one of the letters purporting to have been written by
Lord Ranelagh to Mrs. Borradaile was like his own
handwriting at a time when he said he had been em-
ployed by Rachel to write a letter from his lordship to
• the prosecutrix Then he said in the entry that he con-
veyed various letters from Eachel to Edwardes. The
entry, being the result of an afterthought, must be at
once rejected ; and that being so, and there being really
only the one witness, Minton, in the case, there was
nothing to affect the home, hearts, or household of
Eachel. Of course, to listen to the prosecution the
prisoner was something like the Witch of Endor, but
now that the whole of the evidence against her had l3een
produced it was abundantly clear that she was wholly
guiltless of any charge whatever. There was one letter
upon which the prisoner must be acquitted. That was
a letter written by Mrs. Borradaile containing this
passage : " I cannot tell you how grieved I was to
hear of your sad accident, and so was my dear William,
He will call upon you to-morrow." Did William call, and
to whom was this letter addressed ? These were mysteries.
Again she said in a letter she had called at Cridland's
and found Lord Ranelagh there ; that she thought
his lordship, who was drunk, would have struck her.
She then went on to say that his lordship had spoken of
her " William," and that in consequence she called him
" a liar and a thief, and a cowardly, unmanly vagabond."
(Laughter.) The learned counsel having quoted at
length from other letters of Mrs. Borradaile to Rachel,
he proceeded to observe that the letters she had ad-
dressed to Mr. Haynes, the attorney, were clear, busi-
ness-like, and practical, the productions of a woman of
the world, perfectly capable of telling her attorney how
to conduct her case. He then asked in a loud voice,
"Where is Mr. Haynes?" There being no response,
Mr. Seymour said, " I wished now to further examine
Mr. Haynes, but it appears he is not here, and that the
only answer to my question of ' Where is Mr. Haynes V
is that of ' Echo answers, where ? ' " And now that his
speech was drawing to a close he desired to do again to-
day what he had done yesterday — namely, to remind
the jury that they were not trying Rachel for having
charged enormous prices for her preparations, or for the
high-sounding names she had given to her soaps and
powders. These were things done everyday by trades-
men. A man could not take up any newspaper, in-
cluding the Thunderer, without seeing the enormous
extent to which puffing was carried on in these days,
distinguished, perhaps, from all preceding days by com-
petition, being the grease which kept in perpetual mo-
tion the wheels of industry. Nay, the very newspapers
themselves were competing with each other in red
flaming placards of enormous length, the letters 011
which were as big, not as his leg, but as his bod}r.
(Laughter.) On one of these placards might be read
the words, " The largest paper in the world," and on the
other, " The largest circulation in the world." (Renewed
laughter.) Before competition of this kind Jordan
water and Arabic perfumes sank into insignificance. If
the jury did not pity the prisoner, at all events let them
sympathize with the cause of justice. What had she
received from Mr. Haynes ? A check ? He denied it,
for there was not a particle of documentary proof in
support of the allegation. If on the last trial justice
had not been done the prisoner, let justice be done her
now. If before she had not been dealt with impartially,
let her be dealt with impartially now. She had not at-
tempted to escape the hands of justice, though there
were occasions since this matter was first talked about
when she might have absconded to Paris. She made
her appearance at the Marlborough Police-court, and at
all times when wanted she was forthcoming. His task
was done. Whatever the issue of the case might be, he
felt that he had discharged his duty. He had tried to
be animated and stimulated by the belief that he should
not make his appeal to the jury in vain. The counsel
who maintained the dignity of his profession, and en-
deavoured to support the interests of his client by fair
play, and not by sophistry, usually obtained the approval
of the Court and the respect of his fellow-citizens, but,
above all, he had the satisfaction of enjoying the ap-
proval of his own conscience. If he believed and was
satisfied that the jury then in the box could realize the
importance of this case, not only to the present genera-
tion but to posterity, he should believe in the triumph
of his contention whether the verdict was for or against
him ; but if he could suppose that, after all, their minds
would still remain prejudiced, then he would appeal
from their anticipated conviction to the justice of his
The learned counsel, who had on the two days occu-
pied with his address spoken for eight hours and five
minutes, here resumed his seat amid some applause,
which was at once suppressed by the officers of the
Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE, in replying upon the whole
case, said he would only occupy the attention of the jury
for a comparatively short time, during which he cer-
tainly should make none of those inflammatory appeals
to their consciences in which his learned friend had in-
dulged, and which were quite unnecessary in a trial of
the present kind. He should also forbear from touch-
ing on many of the matters upon which his learned
friend had commented, and especially would he take
>care not to imitate Mr. Seymour in making any boast of
the place (though it was London) which had given him
birth. (Laughter.) All references of this kind, how-
ever able and eloquently they might be made, accom-
panied with all that vehemence to which they had just
listened, were altogether misplaced. The case itself had
unquestionably excited great interest in the press and
on the part of the public, but then in many respects it
was only a trumpery affair, and there was no pretence
for telling the jury that the eyes of the world were upon
it, and that it would go down to posterity as one of the
the most memorable trials of the age. Parts of it
admitted of no question of doubt. It was undeniable,
for instance, that Mrs. Borradaile had lost all her money,
her property, and her pension, and the only question
was whether all that had been lost by means of the false
pretences made use of by Rachel. And this being the
simple issue, he could not forbear thinking that much
valuable time had been consumed in the conduct of the
case. The only defence set up was that Mrs. Borradaile
had had an intrigue with some man named William,
and that to that intrigue Madame Rachel was a party.
If, then, this was the simple issue, and this defence, the
vehement indignation of his learned friend seemed to
have been entirely and uselessly thrown away. The
prosecution admitted at once that Mrs. Borradaile was
a weak, credulous, foolish, and vain woman ; but, then,
she was not the only weak and credulous woman in the
world. The jury had doubtless all heard lately of
the celebrated Chancery case of " Lyon v. Home,"
the plaintiff in which believed that Home could
communicated with the spirit of her deceased hus-
band in the other world. That was a case in
which a picture was exhbited of quite as much folly,
credulity, and weakness as ever Mrs. Borradaile had
shown, and, moreover, while the latter had lost only
some £5,000, Mrs. Lyon was out of pocket to the tune
of about £60,000 in respect of Home's pretended con-
versations with her dead husband. (Laughter.) There
was no analogy between the high-sounding names given
by Rachel to her cosmetics and those given by trades-
men to their wares ; neither was there any point in the
argument of his learned friend respecting competition
and the flaming red placards of the Telegraph and
Standard. Competition and high sounding names there
might be in all branches of trade, but then, in that of
Rachel there was a quantity of worthless trash collected
by her and put into bottles and sold at enormous prices.
The truth was that she carried on a system of whole-
sale fraud under the plea of having a perfumer's shop.
The shop and all its contents were a mere matter of form
and of trickery, under the pretence of conducting
which she had other objects in view ; and, before this
case was concluded, such new facts would be opened
up as would cause the jury unhesitatingly to pronounce
a verdict against her. Early in 1865 she discovered
that she had got one of her victims in the person of
Mrs. Borradaile — a woman of original beauty, which
was now beginning to fade, and one who was very
anxious that she should be made " beautiful for ever."
Rachel, being a woman of great craft and very consider-
able mind, brought that craft and mind to bear upon
her victim, and succeeded in possessing herself of the
whole of the money belonging to the latter. Then came
a change. When first she knew Mrs. Borradaile she
owed half a year's rent, but the money now obtained
not only enabled her to pay that rent, but to furnish in
-a most costly manner a house in Maddox-street, and to
purchase an opera-box season ticket for £400. Now,
the jury would have to say whether the name of Lord
Ranelagh had been used by Rachel in a manner and
with a view of operating upon the mind of Mrs. Borra-
daile. That his lordship was in the habit of gossiping
on several occasions in the shop was true enough, and
that on one of these he was introduced by Rachel to
Mrs. Borradaile was equally true. And here it was not
undeserving of remark that, although Miss Rachel said
the business was extensive that she could not see where
her mamma took the money from to lend to her custom-
ers, yet both Rachel's daughters were always kind enough
to engage in conversation with Lord Ranelagh. True
it was that it was somewhat curious to find his lordship
in the shop ; but there lie was. The shop was a highly
exceptional one. Shops of the kind had existed some
centuries ago. They were places where, commencing
with the perpetration of moderate frauds, other acts
were done which had better not be more particularly
mentioned now, except to add that the sooner such dens
were rooted out of London the better. He wished all the
ladies who had heard or read this case would learn that
if once they crossed the threshold of such places they
would come out with a taint upon them. Although he
did not impute any impropriety to Lord Ranelagh for
being introduced to Mrs. Borradaile at the shop, yet
that introduction ought to have created surprise in his
mind, and if he had been prudent he would not have
gone there again, for he could scarcely fail to see that
Rachel had an object in causing the introduction to be
made. There was no doubt that Mrs. Borradaile was
attracted by the appearance of his lordship, and that she
possessed at the time an inordinate idea of a lord. (A
laugh.) Londoners generally did not view lords in quite
so-exalted a manner as the ladies in the country seemed
to do (laughter), and accordingly Mrs. Borradaile, being
a lady fresh from the country, no doubt went home
after her introduction to Lord Ranelagh with her vanity
particularly gratified, and then followed the false pre-
tence of Rachel that his lordship would marry her, and
her parting with her money and property. Now, if
Mrs. Borradaile had gone to any respectable attorney
in the first instance, he would have taken her out of
Rachel's hands. But was the use of talking to a lady ?
(Laughter.) It was very easy now to say that she
ought to have done this and that ; but if once a lady's
mind was bent upon doing a certain thing, she would
do it in her own way and after her own fashion. (Great
laughter.) Accordingly it was to Mr. Haynes she went,
an attorney, who undertook the case because he
saw that out of her money he could recoup him-
self in the matter of the rent owing by Kachel.
He (the learned Serjeant) had no hesitation in
saying that Mr. Haynes was a man who was
a disgrace to his profession — a profession which
was as honourable as any in existence, and which
numbered among its members men in whom more
of trust and honour was reposed than perhaps in any-
other profession in the world. The first transaction in
which Mr. Haynes took part was the sale of £960 worth
of Mrs. Borradaile's stock, and then speedily followed
the sale of all her other property. If he (the learned
Serjeant) possessed the eloquence, and could employ
the rounded periods and powerful accents of his learned
friend, he would paint Mrs. Borradaile as the woman of
honour and of truth who had been plundered of all she
possessed in the world by the prisoner in the dock — a
prisoner who, not satisfied with her new house in
Maddox- street and the opera- box ticket obtained out of
her money, had the heartlessness to throw her into
Whitecross-street when she had nothing more of value
of which she could be plundered. (Applause.) And
yet the prisoner had been treated by his learned friend
as a sort of angel (laughter)— as an ill-treated woman
— as one deserving of the sympathy of the jury,
and around whom they ought to throw a halo ! What
had Mrs. Borradaile got for her £1,000 given to this
angel ? Literally nothing whatever. She certainly got
what was called the soap from Hymettus (laughter),
and the distilled dew-water brought by the swift
dromedaries from Sahara (great laughter) ; but not one
drop of the water brought from the Jordan did she get.
(Eoars of laughter.) Baths she had, and baths to the
number of 100 (more laughter) ; but then the price of
them was not covered by the £1,000, for it appeared
that for every one of the baths she had to pay out of
her own pocket. Sums of £1,200, £700, £1,400, and
so on, were next obtained from her by Rachel After
these came the bond, and the end of the drama — White-
cross-street Prison. There was one point which would
settle the guilt of the prisoner in the mind of any hu-
man being, and to this he now wished particularly to
draw the attention of the jury. It would be remem-
bm'd that the letters which professed to come from
William were in four or five different handwritings.
There was no explanation of that differences offered by
his learned friend, but there was one answer given on
the cross-examination by the two Misses Rachel who
had been called, the importance of which could not be
exaggerated. Much had been said by his learned friend
respecting the education beauty, and propriety of man-
ner of these two young ladies, but he (Mr. Serjeant
Ballantine) ventured to say that there never were two
ladies in the box who, in the comparatirely short space
of time they were in it, had told more lies than the
two in question. He undertook to state that not one
word of truth had escaped their lips, except one, and
that consisted of an admission, the effect of which they
did not understand, but which would be utterly damag-
ing to the prisoner. One of the documents produced
was partly in one handwriting, and partly in another.
It proposed to authorize Rachel to receive £50 a year,
payable quarterly, being the amount of Mrs. Borradaile's
pension ; and the latter said that though she had
written these words at the head of it, "I authorize
Sarah Leverson to receive," — the other words fol-
lowing the word " receive "—namely, "£150 a year
payable quarterly, out of my pension," were not in
in her hand writing. The two Misses Rachels had recog-
nized the £150 a year payable out of the pension to be
in the handwriting of their younger sister, who was now
in Paris. His learned friend had asked the jury if they
would charge forgery against that younger sister. Why
of course they would if she was guilty of it, and here there
was evidence to show that guilty of it she Avas. This ad-
mission en the part of the two Misses Rachels led to
an examination of the handwriting of some of the letters
signed "William," and the result was thatona comparison
of writing there was every reason to believe that three of
the letters signed " William " had been written by this
younger sister. If this were so then the prisoner was com-
pletely convicted of getting her daughter to commitforgery
and Heaven only knew what other crimes she made her
daughters perpetrate in the little back-parlour which
was constantly open in New Bond-street until 12 o'clock
at night. He would not attempt to paint the picture of
that little back-parlour, when Rachel there instigated
the forgeries and acted as the go-between in the carry-
ing on of the intrigues. He submitted that the counsel
for the defence might, if they had chosen, have proved
who and what " dear William " was. It was an utter
fabrication and fraud, to say there was any such person;
but if, as to all appearance, it was true Madame Rachel
to excite the silly fancy of Mrs. Borradaile, had used
the name of Lord Ranelagh, and had fostered the idea
of a marriage with him in order that she might plunder
her victim of all that she possessed ; having done that
she had the cruelty to turn round and say that every-
thing which she had received had been handed by her
to the lady's paramour. The next question for the jury
was how that packet of letters got into the possession
of Madame Rachel ; how did she get them back, when
did " dear William " bring them, and under what cir-
cumstances. He believed that those letters were never
out of the possession of the prisoner, and that they were
safely locked up in her cofters until they were to be
used by her as evidence against her accuser. He would
ask them by their verdict to crush, before it became
too powerful, one of those engines for fraud and extor-
tion which unhappily existed at the present day, which
terrified persons and prevented them coming into courts
of justice — persons who would sooner submit to felony
and fraud than that their names should be exposed to
the public. While Mrs. Borradaile was having the
money dragged from her pockets, while it was finding
its way into the Levison opera-box, and into her gaudily
furnished house in Maddox. street, the letters were being
concocted for the purpose of showing — should the time
arrive for doing so — that her victim was a vile and stupid
member of society. This was what Madame Rachel
intended from the beginning ; but he ventured to say
whatever might be the weakness or the folly of that lady,
that to the end of her days she would deserve the thanks
of society for having been the means of exposing so
heinous a crime. An insinuation had been made to the
effect that Mrs. Borradaile, gentlewoman that she was —
for she was gentle in birth, manners and demeanour —
was living at the time when those letterswere written with
a paramour, and had supported him till he had impover-
ished her. He would ask, who had dared so to instruct his
friend — who was the liar ? he might say. He could now
with satisfaction approach the termination of this re-
markable case, and ask them with confidence to pro-
nounce a verdict in accordance with their sense of
justice. On the part of the Crown his desire had been
to conduct this prosecution fearlessly, frankly, and
honestly, and if the jury were satisfied of the guilt of
the prisoner he would ask them to be equally fearless
and honest, and to pronounce such a verdict as would
lead them to feel they had satisfied the ends of justice
and done their duty to their country.
The COMMISSIONER asked the jury if they wished the
trial to be concluded that evening.
The Foreman replied he believed that to be the wish
of his colleagues.
Mr. Commissioner KERR then proceeded to sum up
the case. He could not refrain from saying that a good
deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into the
case, and it was only fair to the prisoner that that matter
should be swept away in the first instance. He did not
think any good would be done by calling their attention
to the different counts in the indictment ; the charge
% substantially was that the prisoner, by representing that
a marriage was about to be effected by her means
between the prosecutrix and Lord Ranelagh, had induced
Mrs. Borradaile to part with large sums of money and
property of considerable value. Whatever the amount
of that property, whether it was £5 or £500, was no^a
matter for their consideration ; they must be satisfied
that by the representations of the prisoner Mrs. Borra-
daile was induced to part with her money, and that
those representations were false and fictitious. Much
had been said and written about the business which was
carried on by Madame Rachel in Bond-street. That
they must altogether exclude from their mind, and no
prejudice must be allowed to weigh with them in
arriving at the verdict which, by their oath, they were
bound to pronounce. No doubt, attractive advertise-
ments were published, which led man} credulous per-
sons to become her customers ; but with this they had
nothing whatever to do. The Commissioner then pro-
ceeded to comment upon portions of the correspondence,
observing that it was not necessary to comment upon
all of it, as for the purposes of the defence one letter
was as good as a dozen, and he specially singled out the
letter of September 3, 186G. (This was the letter com-
mencing with the words " My own dear William, — If
you knew what I have suffered since Saturday night on
your account, one unkind word would never escape
your lips to me," &c.) A current of conscious humour
played through this letter, which showed that Mrs.
Borradaile might really have known that she was
writing to Lord Ranelagh, although she addresssed
"Dear William." There was a remarkable fact
about several of the letters which it would be
well for the jury to consider. Fortunately he had
been able to secure the services of Mr. tlnder-
Sheriff Roche, and he had asked that gentleman to look
at the water-marks of the paper on wliicfc the various
epistles were written. Some of the letters were written
on black-edged paper, and some were not ; and it was a
remarkable coincidence that some of those which were
sent by Airs. Borradaile to " Dear William," and by
Madame Rachel to Mrs. Borradaile bore the same water-
mark— namely, Joynson, with the date 1865, 1866, or
1867. There was a great similarity in the paper upon
j^kicn others of the letters were written, several of them
bearing a stamp with the Prince of Wales's feather in
the corner. It would be for the jury to say what was
the effect of these similarities upon their minds, and
whether they were satisfied that when Mrs. Borradaile
wrote these letters she was acting at the dictation and
under the influence of Madame Rachel: They must be
satisfied that the prosection had made out their case
before they ventured to return a verdict of guilty against
the prisoner ; and if they entertained any doubt, any
reasonable doubt, it would be their duty to give her the
benefit of it and acquit her.
The jury at a few minutes past 8 o'clock retired to
consider their verdict, and, after an absence of a quarter
of an hour, returned into court. On being asked
whether they found the prisoner guilty or not guilty.
THE FOREMAN said that it was the unanimous opinion
of the jury that she was Guilty.
The CLERK of the ARRAIGNS. — And that is the opinion
of you all.
The FOREMAN. — Yes.
The prisoner then rose from her seat and approached
the edge of the dock. Addressing the Commissioner,
she said, My Lord, — Will you allow me to speak one
word ? May I request Mr. Roberts to hand in the
affidavit sworn to by Mr. Haynes ?
The COMMISSIONER assented and the document was
produced by the solicitor for the defence.
The Prisoner. — I must ask your Lordship kindly to
The COMMISSIONER. — Yes. if you wish it. (He read
it accordingly, but not aloud.) Do you want me to read
this French letter as well ? I have read the affidavit
and the other letters.
The Prisoner. — Will your Lordship read it aloud.
The COMMISSIONER. — That I cannot do.
The Prisoner. It is a sworn affidavit my Lord.
THE COMMISSIONER. — That it may be, but it has no
reference to the matter in hand.
The Prisoner. — He swears, my Lord, that I am a poor
distressed woman in his evidence, and not able to pay
my rent. Now he swears that I am a rich woman.
Then he swears that I have received the money, but, my
Lord, I never had the £500. Her paper she purchased
in Bond-street, where I purchased mine. There she is,
ask her. I have been defended by most able counsel,
and I have nothing to complain of. They have done all
in their power for their client. I have only to thank
the gentlemen who have defended me. Far be it from
me to make any speech or to create any sensation, but
that which is known as the Bond-street mystery will
remain a Bond-street mystery still. Pass the sentence
upon me if you please.
The COMMISSIONER then said, — The jury by their
verdict have found that you have obtained from Mrs.
Borradaile, by false pretences, very large sums of
money. They have believed the story, the theory, that
has been put before them by the prosecution.
They have arrived at the conclusion, upon the evidence
laid before them, that Mrs. Borradaile first addressed
herself to you in May, 1866, and that you, under the
pretence of effecting a marriage between her and Lord
Ranelagh, obtained from her large sums of money,
thousands of pounds, together with jewellery, plate,
lace, and goods of various kinds, which you had induced
her to buy for her marriage. I do not recollect any case
in which the obtaining money by false pretences, at all
times a serious crime, has presented more aggravating
features than this. This foolish and misguided woman
trusted herself entirely in your hands, and I do not
think that the language of the prosecution, now that
the jury have decided upon the facts, was at all uncalled
for. You pillaged her of everything she had, you have
left her with nothing except the pension which her
husband gained. All the rest of her property, I fear, is
irretrievably gone, and to a very large amount, and then
when she found herself in difficulties as to paying for
the very goods you induced her to buy, you came down
upon her mercilessly, and was the means of shutting her
up in prison. I cannot conceive, now that the jury
have come to the conclusion they have, any
case of obtaining money by false pretences which
is more aggravating in its nature than this one,
either as regards the length of time which the fraud was-
carried on, the means by which it was effected, or the
results which have attended it. Mrs. Borradaile, I say,
intrusted herself to you, and now she finds herself little
better than a pauper. She has been exposed to the
public gaze — I will not say to the public contempt, but
certainly to public pity. Her position in society has
been destroyed to some extent, and the case has been
described as "a Bond-street mystery." But there is
now no mystery about it — all the mystery has been
dispelled by the ordinary exercise of common sense on
the part of the jury, who have so patiently listened to
the evidence as it proceeded. Mrs. Borradaile not only
finds herself in the position, I have mentioned, but her
daughter, who might have looked forward to some
fortune, is entirely dependant upon her relatives.
Every shilling which should have come to her has gone
into your hands. First of all, you attempted to set up
a pretence that you had in reality paid this woman
£2,700. The jury have found that this was all a part of
the fraud and untrue ; then what was still worse, as the
jury must have seen, after robbing this woman of all her
property, you concocted a scheme to blast her character
by saying that she had been spending her money upon
a paramour. The jury have negatived that also. I
certainly shall not be doing my duty to society if I pay
any regard to observations which may be made as to
your position, your age, or your family,. I should be
unworthy to set here if I did not mark your case with
some severity. I must pass upon you the whole sentence
of the law, which is that you be kept in penal servitude
for five years.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
Our readers will be relieved to find that the great
E,ACHEL-and-BoRRADAiLE case is at length over. When
it was dismissed at the last session of the Central
Criminal Court few expected, and still fewer, we fancy,
wished, that it would really be renewed this session,
and up to the last moment some hopes were entertained
that, by an arrangement of some kind between the con-
tending counsel, the original dimensions of the case
might be considerably reduced. So far from this, how-
ever, the second trial has occupied more than twice the
time occupied by the first. The counsel seems to have
been put upon their mettle — partly, no doubt, by the
unsatisfactory result of the last trial, in which each
probably thought that he had fairly earned the victory,
and partly, perhaps, because of the unusual amount of
public attention which the case has, for obvious reasons,
excited. Hence every nerve has been strained by both
sides to make each the most of its own view. Fresh
witnesses have been produced and fresh theories
advanced, which, however, had little more than their
complete novelty to recommend them. The prosecution,
for instance, have discovered that the "bewitchment" of
Mrs. BORRADAILE was due, not entirely to Madame
RACHEL'S hocus-pocus and broomstick fascination, but
also to what the poor lady, in her innocence, calls
" whisky," but what was, no doubt, some mysterious and
potent drug. The defence, on the other hand, have
made the scarcely less startling discovery that, so far
from being the crafty schemer, the stag%e villain of the
Bond-street drama, poor Madame EACHEL is the artless
victim, the unhappy dupe. The wily widow of 50 had
fooled her by an ingenious story of intended marriage
with a cousin, Captain Edwardes. Indeed, the counsel
for the defence so warmed with his own eloquence as
he expiated on this tearful theme that at last he drew
a picture of his injured client better suited to a ST.
THERESA or a Mrs. FRY than to a woman who, by his
own confession, had encouraged an intrigue in which
the wily widow " squandered her money on a para-
mour." Such a picture was in itself damaging enough
to the client from its intrinsic absurdity, but it did even
more mischief by giving the counsel for the prosecution
just a shadow of excuse for a series of wholly irrelevant
and unfair appeals to the powerful prejudice against
Madame RACHEL'S high prices and equivocal business —
a prejudice which had nothing whatever to do with the
points at issue in the trial, although it has probably had
a good deal to do with the verdict.
We call attention to this sort of advocacy merely
because it tends to introduce into the case diffi-
culties which give it an importance and singularity
which, from any but the forensic point of view, it can
scarcely be considered to possess. If each advocate
must not only have an angel for his own client, but
must also be able to show that his opponent's client is,
if an angel, one of quite another kind, he cannot help
exposing various points of attack so weak that they fall
to pieces as soon as they are touched. In the present
case it seems to us that, on the hypothesis maintained
by each counsel, there are certain facts for which it is
wholly impossible to account. The forensic contest
becomes a battle in which the right wing of each army
defeats its antagonist, and driving it far from the field
in headlong route, naturally claims to have won the
victory. But of course the outside public are not
altogether bound either by one forensic hypothesis or
the other. They may accept just as much or as little
of either as they please. It is not necessary to believe
either, with the counsel for the defence, that Mrs.
Borradaile is a monster of pruriency because she "takes
a photograph to bed with her," or, with the counsel for
the prosecution, that she is so artless and innocent of
the ways of this wicked world as to be "bewitched"
into utter helplessness by "what she calls whisky."
Nor, on the other hand, need one impale oneself upon
either horn of a dilemma which presents Madame
Rachel as an intriguer of more than human ingenuity
or a wretched dupe. For our own part, we must frankly
confess that although we have no doubt whatever that
the case made out against Madame Rachel was not one
that ought to have condemned her in a court of law,
we, nevertheless, cannot conjure up any sympathy with
her now she is condemned. Whatever may be the
difference of opinion about the prisoner's legal guilt,
about her moral guilt we take it that there can be no
doubt whatever, unless, indeed, the counsel for the
defence has really fallen a victim to his tearful eloquence.
And as for Mrs. Borradaile, it will probably be thought
that, whether she ought or ought not to have won her
case, she has, at least, been so cruelly punished both in
purse and person that the sternest critic need not grudge
her whatever of her reputation the verdict can restore.
But though the verdict, considered simply and solely
in its action upon the principal parties concerned in this
on the whole satisfactory enough, we regret to be obliged
to take a very different view of the way in which it was
obtained. We need scarcely point out that the trial in-
volved public interests of far greater importance to the
community at large than either the punishment of
Madame Rachel or the character of Mrs. Borradaile,
and these interests, we fear, have gravely suffered.
Though Madame Rachel's conviction will, perhaps,
surprise no one who knew the universal prejudice existing
against her, or who heard the Commissioner's charge to
the jury, there can be few whom the charge itself will
not astonish. As our readers have by this time heard
over and over again, the strong point in the case for the
defence consists in the mass of letters written confessedly
by Mrs. Borradaile to "dear William," but which she
swears she wrote under the impression that she was
writing to Lord Ranelagh. We need scarcely here
repeat all the arguments which have been advanced to
show how wildly improbable and untenable this theory
is. They must suggest themselves to any reader who
has taken sufficient interest in the case to read the
letters for himself. On no hypothesis whatever, how-
ever wild — assuming no matter what folly in Mrs. Bor-
radaile or depraved ingenuity in Madame Rachel, taking
Madame Rachel, of course, as she stands, an illiterate
shopkeeper, not a witch nor a miraculous genius — can we
reconcile the letters either with Mrs. Borradaile's belief
that she was writing to Lord Ranelagh or with the non-
existence of a "dear William." The Recorder, when he
tried the case last session, frankly confessed that Mrs.
Borradaile's theory was inexplicable and incredible, and
on this ground summed up for the prisoner. What is
still more remarkable, the counsel for the prosecution —
than whom no more intrepid and few abler counsel
exist — has deliberately in both his speeches shrunk
from any attempt fairly to get over the difficulty. And
as Serjeant Ballantine is famous for his skill in gliding
as swiftly and lightly as possible over treacherous
ground, this is only, we may remark, what everybody
expected from him. In neither of his two speeches
did he attempt fairly to prove that Mrs. Borradaiie
wrote the letters when in the possession of her
faculties as an ordinary human being. In the first
speech he took refuge in a vague psychological theory,
to which he scarcely devoted more than a paragraph of
a singularly able speech, about the ascendancy which
one mind may acquire over another. In the second
feeling, probably, the hopeless feebleness of this argu-
ment, he fell back in despair upon the scarcely less
desperate theory of the drug which Mrs. Borradaile
called " whisky ; " and even this theory he worked rather
indirectly, and in the way of passing appeal to the anti-
Rachel prejudice, than by boldly putting it upon its
Mr. Commissioner Kerr, however, is, it appears, a
bolder man, and he rushed in fearlessly where neither
Serjeant Ballantine nor the Recorder had dared to tread.
He had a theory by which to show that Mrs. Borradaile
while in the possession of her faculties, neither bewitched
nor drugged, might, in writing these letters, have fully
believed that she was writing to Lord Ranelagh, and a
most astonishing theory it is, considering that it comes
from the bench, and was the keystone of a charge which
left the jury no alternative but to convict. If it had
come from an advocate, we should certainly have never
dreamed of noticing it. The Commissioner, after re-
marking that the counsel for the defence spent many
hours on commenting upon all these letters, declared
that this time was wasted, as, for the purposes of the
defence " one letter is as good as a dozen." He then
takes one letter out of the mass and shows — ingeniously
enough, we admit — that,Mrs. Borradaile may possibly
have addressed it to "Dear William" under the belief
that she was writing to Lord Ranelagh. " A current of
conscious humour" plays through it all, and this one
hypothesis, because it happens to be suitable to this one
letter, and to account for its possible, though not
probable, character, is gravely and confidently advanced
as if it also accounted for a mass of letters of a totally
dissimilar kind. Whatever may be the satisfactory
features of the trial, we fear we cannot include among
them the fact that it was tried by Mr. Commissioner
After five days of protracted inquiry, the Rachel
trial has terminated in the conviction of the prisoner.
It could not have been otherwise, if common sense and
common justice were to be allowed a hearing. All was
done that could be done to obscure the plain and simple
issue on which the jury had to decide. Of the nature
of the defence, by which it was attempted to shield the
miserable creature now sentenced to five years' penal
servitude — of the manner in which the evidence was got
up — of the mode in which that evidence was commented
on by the counsel for the prisoner, it will be our duty to
speak again. For the present, we are concerned only
with the question which the jury had before them. Did
Madame Rachel defraud Mrs. Borradaile of her money
by false pretences, or was she guilty only of the lesser
offence of having aided an unprincipled woman to carry
on a guilty and degrading intrigue ? About the sub-
stantial culpability of Madame Rachel no reasonable
person could entertain the slightest doubt. It was
proved, beyond the possibility of suspicion, that Mrs.
Borradaile had parted with all her property, with every
shilling she could raise, with every article of value she
had in her possession. It was admitted on both sides
that this property had all passed into the hands of the
purveyor of female loveliness. So far, therefore, as a
moral conviction of Rachel's guilt was concerned, it was
enough to show that she was utterly unable to account
for the disposal of the funds entrusted to her. The de-
fence put forward on her behalf at Marlborough-street,
and sustained till the closing scene of yesterday, was,
that Mrs. Borradaile had had an intrigue with some man
called William ; that, on this paramour she had squan-
dered all her money ; that, in order to divert the sus-
picions of her friends, she had concocted a baseless story
of an engagement with Lord Ranelagh ; that Rachel
had assisted her in deceiving her relations and prosecut-
ing the intrigue ; and that, at the last, Mrs. Borradaile
had turned upon her accomplice and accused her of
having purloined the money squandered on the secret
lover. It was, as Serjeant Ballantine said, " a very
dirty story ;" but it was a story not impossible or even
improbable, and it was one eminently capable of proof.
Had it been true, nothing upon earth could have been
easier than for the prisoner to corroborate it. She had
been the go-between, by whom letters had been passed,
during a period extending over many months, from the
hands of William to those of his mistress, and from the
hands of Mrs. Borradaile to those of her paid adorer.
She had been the financial agent who had conducted the
many pecuniary transactions by which Mrs. Borradaile
had secured the affections of her treacherous lover, and,
if there was one thing absolutely and morally certain in
the whole of this strange narrative, it was that, had
there existed a William at all, his name, position, and
history must be within the knowledge of the woman who
stood in the dock.
Yet, with a tenacity capable only of one solution,
she declined to bring forward the slightest indication
by which this man's existence could be established.
Her counsel were instructed to assert positively that
such a man existed ; they threw out insinuation after
insinuation that he was sometimes one person, some-
times another ; but they persisted in refusing to advance
the very slightest clue by which his identity could be
traced. It cannot be said that this omission was due
to any want of appreciation on the part either of the
prisoner or her legal advisers respecting the extreme
importance of producing the alleged paramour. It was
known that at the last trial the chance of any informa-
tion regarding William had all but proved fatal to her
case. It was matter of notoriety that she owed her
temporary escape simply and solely to the obstinacy of
one of the jury who tried her ; and yet, knowing this —
knowing that a terrible punishment was her almost cer-
tain doom in case she failed to prove that there really did
exist a William — having several weeks during which
any necessary inquiries could be made — having resorted
to any means, however unscrupulous, to damage the case
for the prosecution — she still maintained her unaccount-
able silence. What possible solution is there for this
silence except the simple and obvious inference that
there was no William in existence, and that, therefore,
no proof could be adduced as to his identity with any
person, whether dead or living, at home or abroad?
But though this presumptive evidence of guilt was so
overwhelming as to amount to moral certainty, it was
not absolute legal proof ; and upon the supposed ab-
sence of clear legal testimony the whole defencfe was
based. Fortunately for the ends of justice, and, we may
add, for the interest of the public, this attempt to
escape under a pretence of "not proven" was defeated
by the remarkable patience, skill, and ability with which
the prosecution was conducted. From the time when
Mr. Digby Seymour commenced his harangue by
an attack upon the press for the part it has taken
in bringing a most noxious criminal to justice, it
was clear that the defence had nothing to rely
upon except clap -trap appeals for mercy, insinuations
that could not be established, and allegations which
could not be maintained. With consummate talent
Serjeant Ballantine swept away the irrelevant issues
which had obscured the case. He showed that Mrs.
Borradaile's narrative was credible in itself, that its
apparent improbabilities were explained by the various
circumstances elicited during the trial; and that the
evidence against the prisoner was so overwhelming that
in fact, if not in theory, the burden of proof rested with
the defence, not with the prosecution.
Still, notwithstanding the skill with which the prose-
cution was ^managed, there might well have been a
second miscarriage of justice if the- learned Commis-
sioner had shrunk from the duty imposed upon him. In
a case which is sure to attract public comment, a judge
has always a great temptation to avoid the responsibility
of expressing a distinct opinion on one side or the other.
If the charge from the bench on the occasion of the
last trial had been as clear, as exhaustive, and as con-
clusive as that which was enunciated yesterday, we
might have been spared the necessity for this most
painful and protracted investigation. Mr. Commissioner
Kerr will unquestionably stand higher in professional
repute for the signal ability which he displayed in his
summing up of this very intricate inquiry. While
giving full weight to the arguments which told in favour
of an acquittal, he did not shrink from pointing out to
the jury that, being called upon to strike the balance, he
found it weighed on the side of a conviction. Nor do
we think it less to his credit that when the jury, after a
brief deliberation, had agreed upon the only verdict
they could have found consistently with their oath, he
had resolution enough to deal out strict and stern
justice. Five years' penal servitude is a severe sentence
— severe in itself, still more severe when we take into
account the age of the unhappy woman upon whom it
was passed, the life she has led, the habits of luxury
she has formed. From a box in the opera to a cell in
Millbank, from Bond-street to Pentonville, from enamel-
ling complexions to picking oakum is indeed a cruel
change. But, severe as the sentence is, it is light com-
pared with the offence for which it was inflicted. Never
was a helpless woman who fell amongst thieves plun-
dered more pitilessly than Mrs. Borradaile ; and very
little knowledge of the world is required to know that
she was only one amongst scores of other ladies who have
fallen into the clutches of the harpies of the establish-
ment in Bond-street, and only escaped ruined in pocket,
tarnished in reputation — degraded, if not denied. The
conviction of this miserable creature, who trafficked in
the vanity of women, and the passions of men, is a boon
to the community at large. There are scores of other
persons, doubtless, who pursue the same trade in
London, ply the same arts, and live upon the same vile
secrets. But this Sarah Levison, late Madame Rachel,
was the chief offender of the tribe ; and for a time at
least we shall hear no more of the arts by which women
are made " beautiful for ever " at the cost of their for-
tune, their peace of mind, their character, and their
The jury must have had immense difficulty in separat-
ing their disgust at Madame Rachel's calling and con-
duct as admitted by her defenders, from the impartial
acumen required to pronounce upon her guilt or inno-
cence of the particular offence of which she was charged.
It is easy to insist glibly that there was no evidence
against her ; that she had a right to sell her stains, and
dyes, and potions for what they would fetch, that Mrs.
Borradaile richly merited her punishment, and that the
despoiler was legally guiltless. But the £5,300 of which,
according to Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, this hapless widow
had been defrauded, the assumption that even if Madame
Rachel did not pocket the whole of the money she must
have acted in collusion with the "William" who did, and
the certainty that the Bond-street shop was the trap by
means of which the foolish bird had been caught, were
arguments it was impossible to overlook. If "William"
were Lord Ranelagh, as Mrs. Borradaile declares her-
self to have believed, then Madame Rachel took the
money in his name. If he were, Mrs. Borradaile's
unidentified paramour, to whose extravagance she
ministered, and for the sake of whom she voluntarily
made herself a beggar, then a plausible inference was
that he was a creature in the pay of the accused. Any-
how Madame Rachel was morally guilty, and the jury
has found that she was legally so. The twopenny
mystery, enveloping the chief personages in this
wretched sordid drama, extends to the subordinate
characters ; and how it was that an elderly nobleman
of varied experience, like Lord Ranelagh, visited
Madame Rachel's shop, to be unconsciously used by
that harridan as fowlers use a decoy duck ; how a
solicitor of the acknowledged standing of Mr. Haynes
ever placed himself in the painful position he has occu-
pied in the course of these trials, are, to say the least,,
The defence amounted to this, that there was no pre-
tence and no delusion at all, nor anything to do with
Lord Ranelagh in the matter, and that Madame Rachel
had in fact received the money, not for procuring a
marriage with anybody whatever, but for carrying on
an intrigue between Mrs. Boitadaile and a third person
not produced. We think it impossible — keeping
mysteries out of sight — to read the evidence without
coming to the conclusion at which the jury arrived,
that the pretence did exist, and was the cause that
induced Mrs. Borradaile to part with her money ; and
that the third person was purely fictitious, and the
references to him in the letters inserted advisedly as a
means of answering any such charge as Madame
Rachel's former experience led her to suppose might
possibly be eventually made against her.
Not only is the argument of Mr. Seymour tremen-
duously hard to get over, but each new perusal of the
letters renders it more difficult to suppose that all their
natural circumstantialities were inventions of Madame
Rachel, dictated to the self-confessed idiot in a half-
bemused state. However, this, though a very interest-
ing part of the case, is only of collateral interest. Mad-
ame Rachel's counsel confessed that she might have
assisted Mrs. Borradaile in a low intrigue ; and when a
woman of Madame Rachel's other characteristics con-
fesses thus much there is little need for anyone to
sympathise with her, especially under a conviction,
which she could easily have avoided, had she not been
The second prosecution of Madame Rachel has ex-
tended our view of the extraordinary transactions out
of which it arose, but we cannot say that it has so
materially added to its distinctness as we could have
wished. Two facts come clear enough out of the evi-
dence— the characters, namely, of the prosecutrix and
the prisoner. There is no lack of examples of the
extent to which human folly will go, or human iniquity.
But it would be impossible to find a more striking
example of either development than is to be found in
Mrs. Borradaile on the one hand, and Madame Rachel
on the other. Mr. Digby Seymour claimed credit for
the prisoner for the exemplary manner in which she had
brought up her children. It is the only thing to her
credit which has come out in the course of these pro-
The chief topic of talk this morning has been the
sentence recorded yesterday against the woman Rachel.
It is not too much to say that everyone felt glad and
relieved on taking up his newspaper to find that the
supply of nauseous details were at last at an end. The
doubts which have found expression from time to time,
as to precise legal value of the evidence establishing the
moral guilt of the accused, seem to have been com-
pletely blotted out by the prompt verdict and heavy
sentence. It is not easy to over-estimate the evil
wrought by Rachel and her arts. The folly of her
dupes and the amusement derived from laughing at
their weaknesses are apt to blind people to the
villanous nature of her calling, and to lead them to
gloss over the dark deeds transacted in the Bond- street
shop. Our contemporaries take different views of the
judicial conduct of Mr. Commissioner Kerr, some
thinking that his impartial summing up will add to his
professional reputation, and others maintaining it to be
an unfortunate circumstance that the case was tried by
him. But that Rachel is heavily punished all are glad.
If it were possible to lift the veil from the past career of
this woman, the charge upon which she has just been
righteously convicted, would, perhaps, by the side of
other and worse offences, sink into comparative insigni-
ficance. Criminals do not acquire the deep cunning and
terrible proficiency in evil displayed by Rachel without
having served a long and painstaking apprenticeship.
We know of the victim whose folly and losses are in
everybody's mouth ; but how many other victims are
there who have sunk quietly and unresistingly out of
sight ! The threat of exposure and the fear of public
shame have, we may rely upon it, made many a sufferer,
and all friendless sufferers, silent. The creature who
" never told of ladies' little intrigues" has been punished
at last ; and those who have pushed the matter to a
conclusion have rendered a substantial service to the
PALL MALL GAZETTE.
The trial of Madame Rachel was brought a close last
night. Serjeant Ballantine, in replying upon the whole
case, said that the only defence set up was that Mrs.
Borradaile had had an intrigue with some man named
William, and that to that intrigue Madame Rachel was
a party ; but, if that was the case, the counsel for the
defence might, if they had chosen, have proved who
and what " Dear William " was. It was an utter fabri-
cation and fraud to say there was any such person, but
if, as to all appearance, it was true Madame Rachel, to
excite the silly fancy of Mrs. Borradaile, had used the
name of Lord Ranelagh, and had fostered the idea of a
marriage with him in order that she might plunder her
victim of all that she possessed ; having done that, she
had the cruelty to turn round and say that everything
which she had received had been handed by her to the
lady's paramour. While Mrs. Borradaile was having
the money dragged from her pockets, while it was find-
ing its way Into the Levison opera-box, and into her
gaudily-furnished house in Maddox-strcet, the letters
were being concocted for the purpose of showing —
should the time arrive for doing so — that her victim was
a stupid and vile member of society. This was what
Madame Rachel intended from the beginning ; but he
ventured to say, whatever might be the weakness or
the folly of Mrs. Borradaile, that to the end of her days
she would deserve the thanks of society for having been
the means of exposing so heinous a crime. Mr. Com-
missioner Kerr, in his summing up, commented upon
portions of the correspondence, observing that it was
not necessary to comment upon all of it, as for the pur-
poses of the defence one letter was as good as a dozen,
and he specially singled out a letter dated Sept. 3, 1866.
A current of conscious humour played through this
letter, which showed that Mrs. Borradaile might really
have known that she was writing to Lord Ranelagh,
although she addressed " Dear William." There was a
remarkable fact about several of the letters which it
would be well for the jury to consider. Some of the
letters were written on black- edged paper, and some
were not ; and it was a remarkable coincidence that
some of those which were sent by Mrs. Borradaile to
" Dear William " and by Madame Rachel to Mrs.
Borradaile bore the same water mark— namely, Joynson,
with the date 1865, 1866, or 1867. There was a great
similarity in the paper upon which others of the letters
were written, several of them bearing a stamp with the
Prince of Wales's feather in the corner. It would be
for the jury to say what was the effect of these similari-
ties upon their minds, and whether they were satisfied
that when Mrs. Borradaile wrote these letters she was
acting at the dictation and under the influence of
Madame Rachel. The jury, after a quarter of an hour's
deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Com-
missioner Kerr, in passing sentence, said that he could
not recollect a more aggravated case, not only with
regard to the offence itself, but to the means with which
it was accomplished. The jury had confirmed the view
of the case that was taken by the prosecution, that the
prisoner having deprived the prosecutrix of all her pro-
perty, had then contrived a scheme to answer any claim
that she might make upon her, that scheme being an
attempt to blast her character and ruin her for ever
in the estimation not only of her own friends, but of
all the world. The jury had found that there was no
foundation for this defence, but the prosecutrix would,
no doubt, for a very long time, be pointed at as the
heroine of the Bond-street mystery. The case really
did not come within the description of a mystery, and,
in point of fact, it was a very simple case when it was
looked at by men of the world. It was a very bad case
indeed, and the result of the prisoner's conduct had
been to deprive the daughter of the prosecutrix of the
fortune to which she would have been entitled, and
made her dependent on her family. Under these circum-
stances he felt that he should not be doing his duty if
he did not pass upon her the full sentence of the law,
which was, that she be kept in penal servitude for five
years. The prisoner fainted on hearing the sentence.
Except in the way of an advertisement for Mrs. Levi-
son's beauty factory, one can hardly see what is the exact
object of the trial which has in its way amused news-
paper readers during the present week. As it drags its
weary length along there arises the suspicion that the
Jewish purveyor of female charms may subside into
something of the dignity of a martyr. Martyrdom is, in
these days, a good investment ; the sufferings even of a
victim of the Central Criminal Court and the Assizes
pay. We almost begin to suspect that Mrs. Levison
understands this, and has it has come out that the pro-
secution is not conducted at Mrs. Borradaile's instance,
it becomes a matter of some little interest to speculate
who can benefit by it — always excepting the professionals
engaged — except Levison herself. On the strength of
the notoriety which she has attained, Mrs. Levison has
beautified her shop, and the value of the paint and var-
nish which she bestows on her patients may be estimated
by its effects on her shutters. Possibly she has been to-
some extent reimbursed for her sufferings in Newgate
by the abundant flow of customers in Bond- street ; and
the miscarriage of justice in the first trial, when she
ought certainly to have been acquitted, is likely to pro-
duce what it is the fashion to call an ovation in her
favor, when, not without triumph, she will escape from
her recent familiarity with the gaol, and her interviews
with irrepressible Mr. Serjeant Ballantine.
The second trial has not done very much to improve
on the tediousness of the first. A twice-told tale is
proverbially tedious, and there are jokes which do not
bear repetition. A longer and more tiresome pleasantry
than Mrs. Borradaile's account of her intercourse with
Mrs. Levison it would be impossible to conceive. The
widow Borradaile's story that she was induced to part
with all her property, to run into debt, to take up
her abode in the most questionable of quarters, to
incur disgrace, contumely, and prison on the repre-
sentation that she was to marry an Irish peer who
had fallen in love with her, is confronted by a his-
tory which hangs well together, and is supported
in every particular by the evidence of her own
handwriting and acknowledged letters. Mrs. Borra-
daile's story is pmmd facie of the wildest improbability,
and it happens to be supported by no facts at all. It
rests simply on her own unsupported oral evidence.
Mrs. Levison's story, on the other hand, is not at all
antecedently improbable, perhaps not so very uncommon ;
it hangs with close cohesion together, and it is supported
by very strong evidence in Mrs. Borradaile's own letters,
preserved in an historical series, and primd facie con-
necting and forming a perfectly consistent and intelli-
gible history. As detailed in the letters — and this is
Levison's case — Mrs. Borradaile had formed a disgrace-
ful liaison with an unknown person addressed as William,
who, it is suggested, but does not appear, was a Fenian
adventurer, who had some relations with the notorious
head centre Stephens. On this wretched adventurer—
a penniless, shirtless, flannelless, sockless vagabond —
Mrs. Borradaile (such is the theory) lavished all her
substance ; got into debt and difficulties for him ; exhi-
bited, and as it seems not without cause, the usual
jealousy which an old woman usually has to feel for a
young lover — paramour, as the confidante calls him.
The ardent letters produced as Mrs. Borradaile's contain
the most unmistakeable references to the actual disgrace
of this connexion. In a way the senescent Sappho
seems to feel it, and after a fashion to deplore it. But
the guilty passion is too strong for her ; it generally is in
such cases. She persistently requires that the young
and purchased lover should take her abroad. He, as
would be likely enough, prefers to be petted and
subsidised, and to retain his liberty. The old woman
tries alternate threats and coaxings to secure "her
friend "; the friend contrives to be opportunely sick
or sorry just as every arrangement for the happy future is
made by the lady. When a woman, especially an old
woman, keeps a man, especially a young man, this is what
is most likely to be the history of the amour. If Mrs.
Borradaile's letters do not contain a story (there is no ro-
mance, except the very ugly romance of a vulgar and dis-
gusting chapter of sin and shame) which on the face of it
shows real life, we must say that never perhaps was a fic-
titious narrative composed with so many inherent evi-
dences oivraisemblame, and also so many chance touches
of truth, about it. To have invented all the details of
these letters of Mrs. Borradaile would have done
credit to any fictionist. We much question whether
many French writers of slippery and scrofulous novels
have the skill to do it.
But then there is Mrs. Borradaile's allegation that,
even if she wrote them, she is not responsible for their
contents. Although it is not very distinctly that she
admits the authenticity of this wonderful series of
anatomy epistles, she does not venture distinctly to
swear that they are forgeries. Hints were thrown out
that their authenticity would be contested, or rather the
authenticity of some of them. But, as a whole they
pass without much attempt at denying them. Indeed,
there is a raison d'etre adduced for them. They were
possibly, probably in Mrs. Borradaile's handwriting;
but then there was not a word of truth in them. They
were all dictated by Mrs. Levison. In writing them out
Mrs. Borradaile was merely an instrument, and quite
passive in the astute Levison's hands. Levison con-
cocted the story ; Levison invented the details. Plot
and colouring were alike Levison's. If this is so, we
can only say that Madame Rachel Levison has, after all
missed her vocation. She deserves, in that case, to take
very high rank among the female geniuses of the day.
Miss Braddon and that remarkable authoress whose
offensive novel, Sorrow on the Sea, has, very much to
the publisher's credit, just been suppressed by him, had
better look to their laurels, or their nightshade, or what-
ever the chaplet is which crowns the brows of the female
writer of the sensation story, or the nasty story. For
here is sensation and plot quite as thrilling as Lady
Audley's Secret, with situations and morals nearly as
offensive as those which the purveyors, foreign and
domestic, of fornicating literature commonly venture
upon. Mrs. Levison, we are asked to believe, could
invent this plot, and is master of this language ; and yet
Mrs. Levison cannot write, and probably can hardly
read. But, given that Mrs. Levison possesses this
literary genius — which might have made that fortume
in depicting putrescent characters which she has, as it
seems, failed to do in repairing damaged charms— the
question remains, what was to come of all this lavish
expenditure of talent in faction ? What could Mrs.
Levison gain by representing on paper Mrs. Borradaile
as carrying on a guilty intrigue with a non-existent
" Dear William," who, for no purpose whatever,
was only imagined to be without a shirt to his
back, and an accomplice in the Fenian conspiracy ?
If, as Mrs. Borradaile says, Levison's only object was to
get her money, this was the most tortuous and unintelli-
gibly stupid way of getting at it. And, on the other
hand, why should Mrs. Borradaile submit to the indig-
nity of writing herself down, not an ass, but another
monosyllable of which, as one of her letters shows, she
knew the force ? To get Lord Kanelagh for a husband
might possibly be admitted as a conceivable object of
ambition to one woman in a million ; but that this series
of dirty letters could be a means towards that very
questionable end is simply inconceivable. To this Mrs.
Borradaile's answer, which she dwelt on during the first
trial, was that Levison bewitched her ; that she did not
know what she was about ; that she acted only as in a
dream, or trance. The case then reverts to the psycho-
logical inquirer — to what is called the mad doctor — and
to him only is the case interesting. Very interesting
indeed such a study must be to the experts in so-called
possession and magnetic influences, but to no other
human being. For all purposes of vulgar law and
commonplace justice, Mrs. Borradaile's presence at the
Old Bailey is as useless as that of Tom o'-Bedlam. And
here the matter must end. Mrs. Borradaile's account
of the existence of her own letters is either so stupen-
dously false or so ridicuously absurd that her evidence
is utterly worthless. No conviction can, or ought to be,
grounded upon it.
On the other hand — this expression, by the way, is
quite irrelevant, for the question has not two sides at
all — Mrs. Levison does not account for her being mixed
up with Mrs. Borradaile's concerns, or amours, or
money-matters. But Mrs. Levison is not called upon
to say what her relations with Mrs. Borradaile were.
Her business transactions and her sale of the magnetic
water have nothing to do with the specific charge on
which she is tried. That charge is that she got hold of
Mrs. Borradaile's property by reason of a special and
single false representation. Such false representation
is not proved ; and it is nothing to the purpose to say
that she had some other purpose equally bad, and made
some other representation equally false. The man is
charged with murder ; he is not to be hanged because
it is vehemently suspected, indeed well known, that he
stole a horse. That is what the Irish jury is said to
have thought ; and it is on something of this view of
justice that the late London jury, or at least the majority
of them, were disposed to act a few weeks ago. Mrs.
Levison, however, while she denies that especial con-
nection with Mrs. Borradaile's private affairs for which
she is criminally indicted, will not of course explain her
real motives for interference. If, taking her version of
the matter, Mrs. Borradaile was spending her substance
in a profligate liaison, why was Mrs. Levison privy to
it ? — why did she advance money to carry it on ? — how
and why did she become possessed of the love letters ?
What has become of the plate and the trosseau, the lace,
and sundry other pickings which passed through her
hands ? Why did she introduce that remarkable man
of law, Mr. Haynes, on the scene ? What about all
the actions and counter-actions, the suing and being
sued, the suggested danger of transportation, and all the
rest of it, which will remain unexplained because it is
nobody's business to explain it ? Above all, if Mrs.
Borradaile does not prosecute this indictment, who does,
and who is to be benefitted by it ? Or is it, after all, as
we have already suggested, only a very long and well
considered advertisement of beautiful for ever ? Mrs.
Levison boasts, in reference to a trial in which she
figured some years ago, that " the act of ingratitude " of
the gentleman who refused to pay for his wife's invest-
ment in the Rachel wares " has been amply compensated
for by the generosity of others." That is to say, she
made a good thing by that trial ; and we are rather
afraid that the only result of the affaire Borradaile will
be the doubling of Madame Rachel's "fees."
British justice — so Mr. Digby Seymour declared, in
one of the loud appeals with which his sensation speech
in the Rachel case was interlarded — was at stake in the
issue before the jury. No doubt the cause of justice is
at stake whenever a pickpocket is tried for stealing a
handkerchief, or a street drab is fined for being drunk
and disorderly. Taken in this plain sense, Mr. Seymour's
statement is the tritest of truisms; taken in any other, it is
a simple piece of ineffective rhodomontade. The trial was
remarkable chiefly because it was dragged out for five
days, and because the prisoner's counsel contrived to
declaim for eight weary hours. There were circum-
stances which attracted a great amount of public in-
terest ; but, from the legal and professional point of
view, the case was eminently common-place. We must
protest against the attempt to exalt so miserable an
affair to the dignity of a State trial. Language which
would have been high-flown and bombastic if the counsel
had been pleading before the House of Lords, on the
impeachment of a royal personage, was applied to the
issue whether a wretched woman had or had not con-
trived to steer clear of the law in one particular trans-
action of an infamous career. Nevertheless, though
British justice is likely to survive so ineffable a calamity
as Mr. Seymour's loss of his cause, there are certain
incidents in the defence of the prisoner which, in the
interest of justice, cannot well be left unnoticed. From
the commencement of the proceedings it was determined
to rest the defence upon a purely negative basis. This
course was prompted by such a knowledge of the facts
as only the legal advisers of the prisoner could possess;
and there is no reason to doubt the expediency of their
decision. A prisoner is not bound to offer any expla-
nation of circumstances which seem to establish his
guilt, and he may fairly take refuge in the plea that the
presumption of guilt does not amount to proof. But Mr.
Seymour having elected to stand upon the defensive,
endeavoured to obtain for his client the advantage of a
contrary policy. He declined to produce " William " in
court ; he refused to bring forward one tittle of evidence
to show that such a person had ever existed ; and yet
he assured the jury that there was a " William." The
inevitable result, if not the obvious purpose, of these as-
surances was to convey an impression to the jury that
Mr. Digby Seymour knew who "William" was ; though
for some unintelligible reasons, his client could not bring
him into court. Now either Mr. Seymour was speaking
from book or not. Either he was commenting on facts
which were not and could not be know^to the jury ; or
he was using language calculated to create an erroneous
impression in the minds of his hearers. In either case
he exceeded the fair licence of an advocate.
Another important question must be asked with res-
pect to the mode of defence. Was the attempt to
impugn the lad Minton's evidence in accordance with
the usual rules by which British justice is administered?
Mr. Seymour endeavoured toexplain away that singularly
unpleasant transaction by a mass of sonorous verbiage, the
plain English of which appeared to be, that in law you
must not stick at trifles. It may be so, but, in that
case, the professional idea of a trifle must be very diff-
erent from the common estimate of ordinary morality.
At the examination before Mr. Knox, the boy Minton
gave evidence which was damaging to Madame Rachel's
case. The solicitor for the defence then endeavoured
to obtain information which might invalidate his testi-
mony. A detective was engaged on the job. Going to
Minton's home the man trumped up a story that he
could get the lad a good situation, and persuaded
Minton's own mother to show him a specimen of the
lad's hand writing. Getting hold in this way of a
pocket-book which contained certain entries respecting
the evidence given in court, he tore out the leaves on
which these entries were made, and went away without
leaving an address. The memoranda thus obtained
by fraud were handed to the detective's employer ; the
solicitor gave them to Mr. Seymour ; and the counsel
did not hesitate to use notes which had been got by
fraudulent means from the boy's own mother, to sup-
port the assumption that the lad had committed wilful
and deliberate perjury. Mr. Roberts stated on oath
that the ruse — to use the singularly mild term by which
Mr. Seymour described the transaction— was concocted
by the detective without his own knowledge ; and we
cannot suppose that, before the facts were disclosed in
court, Mr. Seymour knew how the memoranda had
been obtained. Yet we cannot acquit him of grave in-
discretion. After a night's reflection he attempted to
justify the transaction, and asserted that he was equally
responsible with the solicitor. Do we err in believing
that some solicitors would decline to get up evidence in
such a fashion, and that some counsel would decline to
use it when so obtained ?
When you have no case, abuse the plaintiffs attorney.
This used to be one of the traditional maxims of the
Old Bailey ; and the modern translation of the rule
appears to be, When you have no case, abuse the press.
Whenever Mr. Seymour was at fault for matter to spin
out his eight hours' oration — when he was not ex-
patiating on the depravity of the witnesses who sup-
ported the prosecution, appealing to the immut-
able principles of eternal justice, dilating on the
domestic virtues of his injured client, or singing the
praises of his own rectitude, fearlessness, and independ-
ence— he attacked the press. At the commencement
of his speech he besought the jury to fall upon their
knees and implore the assistance of heaven, in order
that they might be enabled to resist the pernicious
influence of certain criticism which had been made in
our own columns and those of our contemporaries ; and
he had the audacity to assert, that but for the prejudice
which the press had created against his client, the
prosecution would never have been sustained. With
characteristic recklessness he first denounced the news-
papers for commenting on the case at all, and then
quoted at length from an article of a journal which has
distinguished itself by its hostility to the prosecution.
In reality, our offence in Mr. Seymour's eyes is, not that
we commented on the trial, but that we commented on
it fearlessly. If we had adopted the tone of most our
contemporaries — if we had said that there was nothing
to choose between prosecutrix and defendant ; if we
had thrown cold water on the attempt to bring the
offender to justice ; if we had ignored the grave public
interest involved in the question whether Rachel should
be allowed to pursue her vile trade unpunished and un-
molested—then we should have had the advantage of
Mr. Digby Seymour's approbation. Because we pur-
sued a contrary course— because we insisted that
the subject must be thoroughly sifted that the prosecu-
tion must be continued until the truth of the charge
should be proved or disproved— our self-constituted
censor charges us with such an outrage upon justice
that its baleful influence could be diverted only by
Divine interposition. We are quite content to let the
public decide between us and the advocates of Madame
Rachel. From the beginning we have endeavoured to
present to tfoe public faithful reports of the evidence ;
while we have sought to point out the salient features
of the case on the one side as well as on the other.
The forensic complaint respecting the criticism of the
press is becoming wearisome ; and, as the public know, it
is intended solely to divert attention from the weakness
of the complainant's position. When a cause is con-
ducted in such a fashion that there is nothing to hide,
nothing to keep back, not a word is said about the un-
fairness of newspaper comment. We do not need to
be taught our responsibilities. We know that one of
the first of those responsibilities is to uphold the
character of justice. We have to see that in courts of
justice invective does not supply the place of solid
argument ; and we should have failed in our duty had
we commented with less freedom and emphasis on the
trial which has closed the Bond-street Mystery.
To THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir, — Will you allow me to call your attention to, and
to protest in your columns against, the course taken by
Mr. Commissioner Kerr in avowedly adopting a sug-
gestion of Mr. Under-Sheriff Eoche that some of the
letters written by Mrs. Borradaile bore the same water-
mark as some of those purporting to come from
The learned Commissioner during the long trial never
once called the attention of Mr. Digby Seymour to this
matter, but seems to have kept it as a surprise for the
jury m his charge to them.
To show the utter fallacy of the argument deduced
from the resemblance, I have to-day been in several
offices, and have found the same watermark, " Joynson,
1865," and " 1867 " on various specimens of note-paper,
and you will see that the paper on which I am writing,
<ind which bears the printed address for use in my office,
has the name (in the watermark) of the same eminent
Is it not a startling thing that this "mare's nest"
discovery of the Under-Sheriff' s should be solemnly put
to the jury as evidence of the forgery of the letters in
question, and that those letters should be specially
selected and handed to the jury to be examined by them
on this point alone, to the exclusion of the mass of the
other letters and documents put in during the course of
the trial, and that this casual coincidence of a water-
mark in note-paper should be deemed conclusive of the
unhappy prisoner's guilt ?
I am Sir, your obedient servant,
W. H. EGBERTS.
46, Moorgate-street, London, E.C., Sept., 26.
To THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir, — Sincerely do I trust that there is nothing in
Mr. Commissioner KBIT'S watermark argument ; for
on lifting up three sheets of apparently different paper
lying in my blotting-book just now, imagine my horror
to find them all marked " Joynson, 1865."
Temple. Yours truly W.
To THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir. — Mr. Commissioner Kerr made a great deal in
his extraordinary charge to the jury of the fact that a
few of the letters to and from the mysterious " William"
bear the same watermark, that of " Joynson, 1867."
The jury were evidently affected by this startling
I write this note, as you perceive, on my private
crested paper, and the watermark is also "Joynson,
1867." So much for the learned Commissioner's argu-
Your obedient servant
Temple, Sept., 26. ONE WHO WAS PRESENT.